Yes. It's just to say I know that there has been discussion over the decades, going right back to Michael Kirby, that we shouldn't make decisions in the fishery based on seeing it as a social program. I understood where Michael Kirby was coming from at that time, and I certainly agree with that.
But the point that we're making here today is that if the shrimp fishery is eventually going to phase out, then everybody who is involved in it at the moment should be dealing with that in an equitable way. It shouldn't be one group that's suffering all at once, and another group that's not suffering.
That's important for the communities. That's the way we're looking at it. I'm not looking at it from the perspective of small business or large business or anything like that. It is that if we're going to help the communities make the adjustment as things move in this fishery, then everybody should be treated equitably. I think that's an economic argument, not a social program argument.
It's essential that we make sure that as the shrimp fishery is dying, we know that the ground fishery is moving up. Changes are going to happen as a result, and adjustments have to be made, and it's this transition period that everybody should be helped through, not shutting out a whole section that's killing communities, that will kill communities.