The second point that the honourable member raised related to the definition of "affected worker". I think he was really just seeking clarification as to whether the definition of "worker" that we are using within this piece of legislation is consistent with the definition of "worker" that we use under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and I can confirm that that is the case. We do want to have consistency between the legislative regimes. If I can just point out why that's important, if we think, for example, about the provisions that we're working towards when orders come into effect that will require workers in COVID-19 vaccination certificate worksites to be vaccinated, we would most certainly want there to be a consistency of application by someone who might be employed as an employee or a contractor. If, for example, we're talking about a hospitality venue, regardless of whether you, as the customer, are being served by someone who is an employee or, if for some reason, that person is a contractor, we would want consistency in terms of the way that the vaccination requirement plays out across both of those people. So that's why the definition of "worker", consistent with HSWA, is the one that we have used there.