CHRIS PENK: Fruitful discussion indeed! So in Part 3 we've heard about infringements and remedies and so forth, so the Minister's opening comments have been helpful. I do want to take him to subpart 2, which is called infringement proceedings—that's clause 27. So this provision is titled: "Types of relief available for infringement". I wonder if the Minister, through this bill, is meaning to say that the court can grant only some types of remedies but not others. And the context, for anyone who's following this debate with great interest, or at least following it, but without the bill in front of them, it says, "The relief that the court may grant for an infringement of a PVR includes—(a) an injunction; and (b) at the option of the plaintiff, damages or an account of profits." So we're having ruled in the things that can be awarded by the court, but I wonder if that implies that others can't, or if maybe the bill is saying, "These ones can, and others may or may not."? I think it would be a significant step, and I don't say an incorrect one, but significant either way, for this House to derogate from the inherent jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter in relation, in this case, to plant variety rights—PVRs—and to tie the hands of that court and to say that only certain types of remedies can be offered; that seems to me would be an interesting exercise in those two different branches of Government respecting each other's roles and responsibilities.