That is also the second question I have, which relates to the legality of what the Government proposes to do once the bill passes. The Minister, earlier on in his remarks, made mention of one of the judgments to do with mandatory vaccination at the border, and he made mention of one of the judgments of Justice Cooke. I've gone and read those judgments—or I read them a while ago, but I've now re-read them—and the critical point that Justice Cooke made, in relation to the border mandates, was that he found that they were, in the legal parlance, vires. So he found that they were legal—Parliament had authorised them—but that was not a slam-dunk argument. That was not something that the court found definitively. In fact, if you read it carefully, he's quite worried about them. So, at paragraph 76, he says that the applicant's arguments are not ultra vires, but, at 77, he says, "I note … that this is not a self-evident conclusion. It is perhaps of some surprise that such an important aspect of the response to the risk of COVID-19 has been implemented through a section that makes no express reference at all to vaccination."