Now, here's my first question, and I should add, and the Minister was quite rightly pointing out that he's responsible for parts of it, even in Part 1—but the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is available, I note, and I would encourage and welcome a response through a call from the seat that the Minister's in, rather than being in the formal chair, if that's appropriate. But in clause 4, "Section 5 amended (Interpretation)", the definition of an "affected worker means a worker who was employed or engaged by a PCBU to carry out specified work". And that key word there, I think, is "engaged" because the definition of "a worker" under the Health and Safety at Work Act includes a contractor or an employee of a contractor. So I'm assuming, and I need this confirmed, that the affected-worker clause in this bill means also contractors and employees of contractors and subcontractors. That's important because what we're then setting a regulation, potentially, to do is to extend the reach of a workplace beyond one's own employees and into the employment relationships of other businesses. So my question is: is that what's intended, and, if so, what is the expectation on the requirement for somebody to be vaccinated and then be, effectively, put off. Because it's easy to say, "Well, I don't want that subcontractor in my workplace.", but it's another thing altogether to then have some kind of obligation for a four-week notice period and a payment of compensation.