 I can't see any hands, so I might go first. Tom, can you give us some practical insights into the application of this incremental rate of return investment logic? Right. You go back to the traps idea. You know, how many traps do we need to find fruit fly early? It's a question of scale, and that's what's important. It's not a question of absolutes, so it's not benefits to cost, it's scale. So the technique allows you to sort that out. It asks the question, what happens if you vary the number of traps? More traps, more costly program, but you detect early, so less avoided damages. Less traps, you detect later, more damages as a result. And you can exploit that trade-off, and it's natural for an economist to do that. That's a clear case. Red imported fire ants, another nice one. I mean, the work here justifies the expenditure on REFA. In fact, I did the first cost-benefit study on REFA in 2002 where they promised we could eradicate in three years, incidentally, right, but it took longer than that. But indeed, the scale initially was not big enough, right? The boundary over which people were searching wasn't large enough, and some escaped. So that's my point. My point is not just to, my point is to think about scale, how large or small the activity should be to maximize the return. We could have done better on REFA if we would have looked further early on, spent more money early on, better rate of return, rather than managing now, but still a good investment. One down the front here. I'll call him, see who it is now. Is that working? Yeah. Okay, good. Sarah, thanks for the talk on the fire ants. I thought that was exceptionally informing and well put together as well. I just want to ask a serious question, and I know that the minister's copped some criticism for this and some ridicule, but biosecurity is a serious issue and I just want to ask, first of all, the gentleman from the CSRO, but everyone on the panel is welcome to comment, but what impact did the minister's comments in regards to Johnny Depp's dogs, did that have in terms of the issue of biosecurity and raising awareness and did it help or hinder some of the work that you're doing? Is this on? Yep. Well, I don't believe it hindered. I think it put in terms that a larger proportion of the population understand just why this was something serious and to be concerned about. So I certainly didn't perceive it as hindering anything. It grabbed your imagination. I think Colin's asking, what's the value of the extra public awareness that came from the minister's comments? Yeah, there are some things money can't buy. I mean, there was Joe Ludwig doing it, but I was just wondering, did you have an initial reaction? Biosecurity is a serious issue, but it was quite a clever way of raising the issue of biosecurity. Yeah, and I think it's consistent with the new investments that the government's making in biosecurity, particularly focused in the north, but more broadly. We, I wouldn't say we, particularly noticed any enhancement of our activities, but I think for biosecurity as a whole, it was a positive. Just to add, I think we've all touched on it being shared responsibility, Commonwealth State, industry involvement and community involvement. And indeed, Sarah touched on and gave the community hotline numbers for fire ant detections as well. So from our point of view, in terms of that shared involvement, it's really hard to engage the community on why they should care in relation to biosecurity. And I think Johnny Depp and the dogs provided an opportunity to have that conversation around why biosecurity is fundamentally important to Australia. Might have been nicer for some of us if it was focused on a sort of livestock effecting or plant effecting type potentially diseases. But look, engaging in public debate on the importance of biosecurity is a good thing and it was an opportunity and it certainly raised the debate, which was good. Sarah, perhaps you could give us some insights from your experience with the red imported fire ants. What are the key lessons in that for managing biosecurity incursions, pest incursions more generally? Sure. Well, just on the topic of community engagement, stakeholder engagement, I would have to say that that is one of the most successful aspects of our program. We've trained over 26,000 people, members of industry and members of the public from all walks of life, in how to identify a fire ant and what to look for. And as I mentioned, 70% of our reports actually come from members of the public because they're vigilant and they're alert and they know when they interact with fire ants and they know that they're important to report. So that's extremely important for us because we are a reasonably small workforce. We're just over 100 people and obviously we can't be everywhere all the time. So any form of awareness, media opportunities that we get to talk about the success of the program are really welcomed. And we've had significant support in Gladstone. You know, it's not just in Southeast Queensland where we experienced this support from the public. It's also in Gladstone. This has been a really critical aspect of the program there. We're in the final stages now. We're hoping that we can declare the area free after we completed a final round of surveillance in June this year. And we're asking the public to get on board and join the ant hunt, making it something that's fun and interesting for them to be involved in. And just that level of awareness, you know, whether or not it's around fire ants or other pests and diseases is really encouraging for eradication programs across Australia, I think. There's a lot to be learnt from what we've done with this program and can be applied in other situations. OK, well, in the absence of any further questions, we might close this session. We're almost at time. So thank you very much. Thanks very much to the speakers.