And then, secondly, does he really get the importance here? This is a unique situation. There is a sense of duress, because if you're not compliant, the duress is that you'll have another 14 days in isolation. Otherwise, you could say, "Well, how is this different to a prison?" Well, in a prison, you can do a cost-benefit analysis and decide whether to say yes to a test, and there's really no other consequence. In managed isolation or quarantine, there is a consequence. There's a punitive sense of duress. Something will happen if you're not compliant with the behaviour being asked of you. I think that in that environment, great care needs to be taken around consent and that different sense of autonomy. I'm just getting a sense—does the Minister understand it's a different sense of autonomy in restrictive isolation compared to out in the environment?