This bill is absolutely a solution looking for a problem, and the context in which we've heard already that, actually, they're trying to implement—look, let's get back to basics. Why are they doing this? They, basically, need to collect more revenue to cover more overheads in a system, and this is a great way in which they think they can do it. It's, basically, another tax system that they're going to try and implement. The fact that this is being used to cross-subsidise other aspects of expenditure and going across the core principles around cost recovery is, as my colleague Andrew Bayly says, just completely inappropriate, and the role in which these charges should be to just simply cover costs is around the fact that that cost-adequacy model needs to be balanced. But, in effect, what this is going to allow is just simply a charging model that is disproportionate and is going to be used and soaked up in other aspects of the broader system. For that reason, that's why we're opposing it. 