So I guess, wanting to keep it within the scope of the 6,000 people that the member alludes to that will be affected: how does the member justify the fairness of moving people to a main benefit and the potentially higher operational costs that somebody being on a main benefit may have in terms of taxpayer dollars? Also, when the member talks about the compounding healthcare costs, considering that those that may need to move on to a main benefit may end up being worse off and knowing that incomes are one of the most important determinants of health, does the member foresee some of those people affected potentially having deteriorating health outcomes and therefore having a higher need in the welfare system and the healthcare system, and potentially contradicting the purpose of this bill, which is to create sustainability within our income support networks?