So what we've got is a situation where it appears, and I'd like the Minister to—he's smiling away there because he thinks that he's got a perfectly reasonable explanation. I hope he does, but I hope it's not just, "Well, we think this is a good idea and we disagree with you."—not you, Madam Chair, but, in fact, the Opposition. But the question is: why would we have a part in the bill—Part 2, "Bank's objectives", under clause 9—clearly stating what those objectives are, but then we're immediately putting in caveats that say that those objectives may change according to the will of the Minister? If the Minister's got an explanation for that, I think it would be useful for the House to know it, and I'd also like to know, if it is all perfectly reasonable and quite simple, why does it need to be there? If there is a board and the Governor-General appoints the board on the recommendation of the Minister or Cabinet, then why do we have to have this other provision in there that would turn the bank's head away from the stated objectives in the front part of the bill, because that's effectively what it does. I know that we can't at this stage in the debate talk too much about Part 3—