The second part of the unusual part of this is that at the committee of the whole House it's very unusual for a Minister to put in such a substantive amendment to a member's bill. The behind the scenes work is usually done through the select committee and the nod and the wink is given. But this is quite overt. It's in the Minister's name, effectively, and giving effect to her wishes. Mr Bayly has just talked about the costs of this delay, but as far as I can tell, on the table, there hasn't been an assessment of what the cost of this change is. So my question to the member is: has he seen those costs in any great detail? Is he satisfied that that's appropriate and that the Minister of Finance is satisfied with this? Because, actually, it's not really a net cost, because the bill overall is going to save money over time. We're just delaying not the start date necessarily but the effective date. So has the Minister or the Government undertaken an analysis of the costs or the savings that we won't make now as a consequence of the two-year delay to the start of this?