I did have my two questions set, but the Minister just made a comment that I would like some further explanation on, and that was that forestry employs more people per hectare compared to the red meat sector. The reason I'm interested in that is because that is not my perception, although I'm sure the Minister has plenty of information to back up that claim, and I'm looking forward to him expanding on why he says that—perfectly prepared to accept his explanation. The only comment I would make around that assertion is that it may well be true that the forestry sector may well employ more people per hectare than the red meat sector, but where are those people? Where do those people live? There isn't a sawmill on every corner, and yet there is a farm on arguably ever corner of rural New Zealand, and so I am interested. Because the demographics of the spread of workers, the workforce, does matter in New Zealand, doesn't it? We're a country of several large cities, but many, many small rural communities, and those rural communities are supported by the red meat sector. That forms one of our objections to this bill: that the impact of this climate change bill at this time will mean that small communities will pay an economic penalty because of the timing of this bill in the post-COVID world. So I am interested in the Minister's greater response to that question.