In respect of the question from Andrew Bayly, I did cover that in some detail in my introductory comments, but I'm happy to repeat for the member. Basically, the argument that intellectual property rights shouldn't be subject to scrutiny in a competitive context is an outdated idea, and so we're essentially repealing that. That is what's happening. Now, robust intellectual property rights incentivise innovation, as the member well knows, and really, arguably, they're complementary, rather than—yeah, well, they are complementary to competition law. So we're removing the safe harbour provisions and making them susceptible to the same scrutiny that we would expect of any other similar thing—