So in the Environment Committee we looked at that process, particularly freshwater panels, and we said: how can we make it accessible, how can we make it understandable, and how can we make it easier to get great outcomes so that we can actually make our rivers swimmable? What we thought was, really, that we wanted to be careful about the use of cross-examination—was one point. Cross-examination can, in fact, not be the best way to get to the heart of a matter. In fact, when you've got laypeople coming to the tribunal, when you've got expert witnesses, what we want is a much more investigative and inquisitorial process. If we look at new clause 47(2) of Schedule 1 in clause 72 of the bill, we'll see that the freshwater hearings panel can "(a) permit a party to question a witness:" or/and "(b) prohibit cross examination:" or "(c) permit cross examination … but only if the panel is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice:" and "(d) regulate the conduct of … cross examination." So those processes are very much saying we do not want some legalistic full-blown courtroom drama on our hands; we want to get to what's best for our rivers.