At the committee of the whole House stage—as recently as last night, so not even 24 hours ago—the Minister made a couple of points that he, I suppose, thought were valid in relation to the National Party's position. One is that he accused us of crystal-ball gazing, which, as I said at the time, I found remarkable, given that, at the time that the original traffic light legislation was passed, it was we who brought to the attention of the House the fact that there was nothing tailored to the courts [Audio issues] Secondly, he made allegations of, essentially, a political stance being taken, which is pretty amusing, to say the least, given that we'd supported at first reading, in good faith, the bill, because we could see that at that time, only a month ago, but [Audio issues] at least somewhat made sense and was worth exploring in the select committee process. For that reason, as I say, we supported the bill and decided, of course, as always, that when a bill has passed its reading and is going into a select committee process, that if changes can be made that are positive, then whether or not we support the overall passage of the bill, it would be worthwhile engaging in that discussion constructively, and so we did. 