Now, I want to start by talking about the process and the time frame. The Minister, in his first sentence, mentioned an abbreviated time frame. When the Government brought this bill a year ago, they gave 10 days' notice, and we understood why that was the case. We were in an emergency situation, we had no clarity on what was going to happen, there were only 12 submissions, and it was a very short time frame. Given that, we had expected, this time around, there would be a full process. As the Minister said himself, if it's a one-year sunset clause then the bill would need to start to be thought about in about June, July, August, and then brought before the House towards the end of the year. That didn't happen for reasons he has failed to explain, especially given the fact that he argued in Cabinet for no sunset clause—yes, no sunset clause. That's what he wanted—that's what he actually wanted. His back-up plan was three years. Luckily, his colleagues said, "Look mate, sorry, that's not happening. We're going to give you two. On your way, sonny." But he would've given us the exact same time frame of three weeks to deliberate on this bill and hear from submitters for three weeks or no sunset clause. So, actually, this whole process of only giving us three weeks is really not good enough, and there has been no explanation as to why that was the case, and we are left to just ponder and come up with the reason that they actually just forgot. And most submitters said, when they came to committee and when they put their submissions in, that the time frame wasn't long enough. And I heard from many submitters who didn't get to have their say at all.