I get that when you and I put our boots on and we're willingly going through that facility with the co-operation of the farmer, we know there is inherently a potential biosecurity risk, because we're being told or we're reading the signs. For the individuals we're talking about—there's a lot of talk around trespassing, activists and people that are quite militant—how do we know that the legislation being proposed is actually going to get to those outcomes and deter?
It's a pretty high threshold when a prosecutor—and I'll get to that question about who would actually be prosecuting this legislation—has to illustrate to a court that, indeed, someone actually knowingly presented this risk to the farmer. If these people are uneducated about the background on farms, are we worried that these people will continue to do it and that there won't actually be an ability to get a charge under the legislation because of that threshold?