Now, the last speaker, Brett Hudson, got it wrong. The farmer does not need to wait until their business has been detrimentally affected to a significant extent until they can obtain an exemption. What they have to do is prove that, in fact, this would be the case. So what they will do is they will get a pest management plan signed off by the relevant territorial authority that says they have a pest management plan, and the only way to deal with this is through a prohibited firearm. Now, how we arrived at this was by talking to a group who, I think, understands the issues pretty well. We canvassed them. We talked to them. We looked at what the regime may be. That organisation is called Federated Farmers. Now, when we talked to Federated Farmers, we said, "What sort of regime do you think would work?", because initially in the bill, we said you had to set up a business. Federated Farmers submitted to Finance and Expenditure Committee. Ron Mark put forward a very good submission, and we looked at this and said, "You know what? That actually makes sense." What Fed Farmers said makes sense. What Ron Mark submitted, that actually makes sense. If a farmer has a real pest control problem, and that farmer has signed off and worked with the territorial authority to actually state yes, this is the best form of pest control, then they can have a prohibited weapon. Of course, they've got to enter the prohibited firearm regime, but, of course, that's what we'd expect them to do. The last thing we want is for every farmer who thinks they have a rabbit problem and needs one of these to be able to access one, which is what that member's SOP number 449 says. Hence the reason why I do not support SOP 449.