The other issue I want to pick up is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7), which is the issue to do with the prohibition on people travelling to a secondary home or place of residence after a Government announcement of the alert level change, and the Minister made reference to this. So it's after there's an announcement of an alert level change, but before the changes come into force. The committee's noted that this is an unusual provision. It imposes an obligation that relies on a subsequent oral announcement. Now, the Minister didn't have a lot of concern with that—or I think he indicated that he didn't really agree with the concern—but that is unusual. So for the Government to impose an obligation on someone that relies on a subsequent oral announcement—and the committee's noted: "Although the main part of the obligation is in this order, elements of the obligation only exist when an oral announcement is made."—that places a reasonably heavy burden on people to actually listen to the oral announcement and, again, from a rule of law point of view, that is, I would say, suboptimal. Things should be as clear as possible in writing so that people can follow the law and follow the rules. So I respectfully disagree with the Minister in his disagreement with the problems with that order.