It's really interesting. Again, I'm thankful for the line of questioning. Often, particularly when you go into a commercial discussion, most of the discussion is around the commercial elements of that negotiation, i.e., the quantum of financial redress. Treaty issues, however, are often not about the amount of financial redress. Often that's actually the last thing that gets discussed. The first thing that gets discussed is a recognition that some issues from the past should be acknowledged. Get those acknowledged first, and then the discussion will shift to addressing a lot of the social issues in the community. Then what happens—and I've been involved in some of these recently—is recognizing within any agreement the need to look after the land and the environment.
Take care of those important drivers, and then you get to the final point, which is agreeing on the financial redress. It's pretty much in that order. It's not the economics first, and all of the other things later.