How far should I go in telling someone they're making a bad decision before you could be considered to be coercive?

That is a really interesting question, and I think part of the answer comes in how you frame it.

How far you can go to explain to people what the likely outcomes of that decision would be is one thing.

If you frame it as a bad decision, I think already we're in that kinda choppy water.

And I know you were sort of saying it there to get the question across, but actually, I think that is an important context, right? It's one thing to say, "I really need you to understand that these are the consequences of your decision, and you can make a moral, ethical judgment about whether you accept those consequences." And it's another to say, "That's a terrible decision.

I don't think you should, should do that." How far you have to go is sort of one of those questions that feels quite tricky to answer from the outside of, of a particular context, but I think it's making sure that you are satisfied that you've communicated risk in a way, but not over-egging it.

If a patient says, "Look, I understand.

From a legal point of view, what did you think of the Fourth Valley?

Are you looking forward to Dan paying you in excess of $12 a kilogram for your lamb and maybe about $10.50 for your beef in the coming season? He's just about fallen off his chair, but am I being unrealistic,

Anna? No, Jamie, I'm really looking forward to that.

Look, we're aspiring to be really continuing the positive trajectory.

We understand that all our farmers need meat.

that profitability to be there.

We're all facing into rising costs.

So, yep, it's really good to have the bars set at that level and to be looking to meet it.

Have we stemmed the bleeding?

Are you looking forward to Dan paying you in excess of $12 a kilogram for your lamb and maybe about $10.50 for your beef in the coming season? He's just about fallen off his chair, but am I being unrealistic, Anna?

No, Jamie, I'm really looking forward to that.

Look, we're aspiring to be really continuing the positive trajectory.

We understand that all our farmers need that profitability to be there.

We're all facing into rising costs.

So, yep, it's really good to have the bars set at that level and to be looking to meet it.

We've heard a lot this morning about what's going on in the world around us, geopolitical risk.

But do you think we've stopped the bleeding in terms of livestock numbers because we had that terrible period and I think I honestly believe that we'll look back in history and go what a mistake this carbon farming is but we lost so much good land pastoral land to trees that shouldn't have been there have we stemmed the bleeding?