I think everything depends now on getting that language right in terms of what the contents of the plan ought to be, and then you guys will have to decide if it's between three and five years, in terms of the tabling of the plan.
I just want to emphasize, I suppose, the wording of the plan. I'll use an example. The United Nations Environment Programme lists seven key disease drivers. Climate change is one, as an example, but two of them are actually more fraught. One is travel, the fact that we move around the world as freely as we do. That is a pandemic risk. Another is the increased demand for animal protein, because as Brendan Hanley mentioned, the challenge of AMR is just one example, but there is a greater pandemic risk in other countries that don't take biosecurity as seriously as we do. If there are unhealthy animals, it can lead to unhealthy humans and a real challenge on the pandemic side.
I do think we want to talk about managing risks. It's not about eliminating activities. It is about managing the risks and reducing the risks associated with those activities in a thoughtful way. If you guys can take that same thoughtful approach at each provision and say, “We understand what Nate's getting at, but here's a better way of phrasing it, while maintaining the core idea of managing and reducing risk,” I think we'll be in a good place.