As I said last night, no one in this House would have any issue with that. Under the previous arrangement, I suspect that farm may no longer be a farm as it was then; it could quite possibly now be planted in trees—and, of course, the attendant issues that come with the loss of community, not just of people but also the wider impacts on schooling arrangements, transport arrangements, all that goes with it. So that is why we were very keen at that stage, in 2018, and why we are supporting this bill, because we think it's one about balance, making sure that we do end up with a viable, thriving forestry industry. But we want to make sure our agriculture and our productive lands are supported and have the opportunity to continue, because agriculture is by far the biggest component of our exports, and without it we would have been in trouble, particularly during the last 2½ years of the COVID crisis. So this bill introduces a more beefed-up test if a foreigner is wishing to convert land to forestry. It's a "benefit to New Zealand" test. We asked the Minister about it last night—about what that test involves; whether, in fact, it involved a counterfactual—but, essentially, what it means is that the foreign investor has to demonstrate that there are superior benefits from converting that to forest land. It's closer to what a foreigner would have to go through if they were buying land for land purposes. It is certainly not the same level of scrutiny, but it's certainly a much tougher level of scrutiny that foreigners have to go through.