I've read the Yardley judgment, Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, quite carefully, and some people have got a little bit carried away and said that it sort of means the end of vaccine mandates generally. That's not quite my reading of the judgment. It's actually quite a narrowly tailored judgment in relation to section 11AB of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that we passed an amendment to under urgency in the latter quarter of last year. I actually raised this in the debate—and if you check the Hansard you'll find this. I raised this issue of the confusion between section 9 of the Act, which allows the Minister to make vaccination mandate orders in relation to public health, and the amendment that came in, which allows the Minister under section 11AB of the Act to make vaccination mandate orders when it's in the public interest. That is actually what's at the heart of the Yardley judgment and something that the Parliament is going to have to grapple with, because what happened in the Yardley case is that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety made a mandate order in relation to the Police and Defence, not on the grounds that it was justified on public health grounds but that it was justified on the grounds of maintaining public confidence in the Police and the Defence Force and, essentially, the continuity of service for those two particular forces.