Sure.
Again, it goes back to the issues we have with drawing boxes and drawing lines that are permanent and rigid. We need to make sure that once we close something, it is going to achieve the result that it aimed to achieve.
If we get five years down the road and realize that we've done it wrong, there needs to be some flexibility there, especially if livelihoods and the well-being of people in our coastal communities are being affected.
We sit at the table and we try to work with the department and work with other stakeholders on closures so that they are actually going to achieve benefits and achieve targets of conservation. If there are no processes in place whereby we can evaluate whether it's actually doing what it's supposed to be doing, and, if it's not, we can go back and revisit that to see how we can do it better, then I think all of our credibility is out the window. We want to make sure that what we're doing is actually achieving something and that we're not just closing something to hit a target, to tick a box.