The level of intrusion on personal freedom and civil liberties because of the impact that a decision by an individual to not be vaccinated has is worthy of debate and it's worthy of ventilation. But the appropriate place to do that, I'm sorry, is not at 9 o'clock at night on a Tuesday with six sitting days to go while we try and figure it out and basically yell at each other about the bill for a while—that's not the appropriate place. The appropriate place is before a select committee, with legal experts turning up, with public policy scholars tuning up, and with health advice and health experts. What the Government's saying, through the very quick passage of this bill, is that they know it all, that they've got all the answers, they've got all the solutions. Actually, there's quite a lot of people out there in the public domain who don't agree with that. As you will have seen from people's email inboxes, in relation to mandates and passports and things like that, actually a lot of people don't agree with all of those particular measures. And all of that is not an argument to say that those people are right, that is an argument to say that their concerns are worthy of respect, they are worthy of discussion, and they are worthy of listening to—not necessarily agreeing with, but they are worthy of discussion, debate, and a voice. The whole point of the select committee process is to allow those concerns to be ventilated.