But in terms of the legislative process for this Chamber, we had, of course, the introduction of the bill at its first reading. Typically, of course, the House would regard a bill as containing a meritorious idea or not, and voting for it at least to proceed to select committee on that basis. I tend to be a bit harsher than some others in this House. I think if the bill isn't in a sufficiently good state, that there's nothing wrong with trying again. But, as it happens, the intent of this seemed obvious enough: to modernise—as others have said—recognising the passage of time and, more importantly, since 1975, the increase in technology, the additional ways that data can be collected, the nature of the data collection, and the use of the data too. So with that initial good intent being recognised across the House, with the bill having gone to select committee and having heard from a number of submitters that while its intent was shared almost universally, nevertheless there were particular points that could be the subject of reservation. 