The other thing the director-general can do is specify reasonable terms and conditions of an appointment. It is well within the powers of the director-general to say, "Well, I'm going to allow you to do this, and, by permitting you to do this, you are protected from criminal liability, but, to limit that, I'm going to make sure that, when you are discharging these services, they are at appropriate events or venues." The director-general has it in their power to define that and, I expect, probably will. That contains the extent to which these services will be provided. If the venue was a gang headquarters, the director-general might ask the applicant for the permit and say, "Well, where do you propose to conduct these services?" If it's going to be at gang premises, I expect the director-general—not I expect; I'm almost certain that the director-general—will decline to grant the permit. So I think there are, in the scheme of the bill in total, sufficient safeguards that mean that the risk of drug-testing services popping up all over the place, including at a gang headquarters, is so minimal—so negligible—as to be virtually zero.