So we will support this bill going to committee, but there's two things we're going to want to investigate at the committee. The first is the scientific rationale for the fourth dose. And I think that's pretty widely understood. But I think it would be worth ventilating the scientific rationale for the fourth dose at the committee. I think that is meritorious, and I expect the Health Committee—where I expect the bill will go—will want to get into the scientific reasoning behind it and potentially get the technical advisory group in. And I see some colleagues who were formerly on the Health Committee with me—Sarah Pallett is giving me the thumbs up over there. She's a very hard-working member of the committee. We're very pleased in the Parliament, actually, that the Health Committee has real health sector expertise on it: Dr Shane Reti, obviously, from our side, but also Sarah Pallett and Tracey McLellan and Liz Craig—I think Liz Craig's moved on from the chair. She's nodding her head. That's a shame because she has considerable medical expertise. But anyway, the Health Committee will get to the details of the science. But then my personal view—and colleagues on this side of the House may wish to explore it further; I know Michael Woodhouse may wish to do so—is that, for me, the real issue is the necessity of legislation to give effect to the fourth dose. Is it correct that we have to legislate in, essentially, a 10- or 11-day process to allow this to happen? From my view—and bear in mind that the Crown's legal advice is privileged, so we haven't had the benefit of the full legal advice—for my part, I think the summary of the advice that I've seen is equivocal. I think there is an argument that an IMO process could give effect to this and we wouldn't have to be legislating through this quite unusual process. 