 I think environmental law has changed quite a lot over the last 40 years. When it first began around 1970 it was very much what we call command and control, command being you the polluter must not do something, the control being if you do it will punish you. And that worked relatively well with what I'd call first generation environmental problems. There were point source polluters meaning large polluters, easily identifiable, it was easy to see whether they'd committed a breach of the law or not and one could threaten to withdraw their license. So as the years have gone by I think we've seen much more sophistication in the sort of approaches that regulators and policymakers have used. Policymakers have also become more sophisticated in harnessing third parties to be part of the regulatory effort. So sometimes they'll try and get industry to regulate itself with a backdrop, an underpinning of government regulation that's necessary to make self-regulation work. So that's better called co-regulation. But they've also empowered third parties such as non-governmental organizations. So my best example would be the toxic release inventory in the United States. Simply required industry to estimate and disclose their level of emissions of hazardous substances. That one on the regulator's database, the NGOs interrogated the database. It would then appear as a league table on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. And that stigmatized polluters, the worst polluters, didn't look good, their share price dropped at least in the short term. And so it was quite an imaginative use of regulation. In Australia we have a very large land mass, multiple problems of natural resource management, complex, very difficult to deal with centrally from Canberra. And the level at which to approach those problems is not necessarily the political boundaries. Really we should think about the ecological boundaries, watersheds for example. And that's actually what governments did. They developed an approach to natural resource management where they divided Australia into 56 really effectively eco-regions. And they said to each of those regions, you develop, with all the stakeholders involved, including indigenous groups, environmental groups, local communities, state governments, you develop your own regional environmental plans and you develop a budget for it. We the federal regulators will oversight all of that to make sure we're comfortable that it's a credible and responsible strategy. And if we're convinced it is, we will hand you the money, which is the inducement to join. But really it was therefore devolving a lot of decision making to the regions who knew a lot more about the complexity of those problems and the solutions that were most likely to work. We're facing very serious problems, environmental problems at a number of levels. We really need strategies. We never know quite the best answer and we have to move by trial and error. But we have to think of solutions that are likely to build in resilience and law and regulation and governance can be part of doing that.