Let's start with what it does well. We know that we came out of the last term of Parliament and Government with a comprehensive list of recommendations by our Trade for All agenda commission. And we'd spent a lot of time engaging with the public, with experts, and with sectors to come up with that. We recognised that trade as it had been done for decades was failing us as an international community. In fact, it had very clearly led to the last global economic crisis, whereby traders—big, multibillion-dollar, multi-national traders—had set the agenda for global policy, trickling down into domestic policy. They had decided that their profits would sit above our environmental concerns, our workers' rights, our human rights, and our indigenous people's rights. So we decided, as a Government last term, that we would do things differently. One of the recommendations, and one that I acknowledge is actually reflected in this agreement, is that it doesn't contain those controversial investor-State dispute settlement clauses whereby international—multi-national, I should say, because these aren't actually traders that have any kind of allegiance to any one State party, they are just multibillion-dollar corporates—can't sue us as a Parliament or successive Parliaments for passing legislation that would uphold the interests of us as people above their profits. That's good. Also, it doesn't include pharmaceuticals, that's also good.