Certainly, in licensing, it makes some changes. There was a comment as early ago as yesterday, which I just think needs to be resolved for the public and the members of the firearms community, in particular. The Minister claimed that the licensing provisions, the amendments and additions to Part 5 of the principal Act around licensing for lawful, law-abiding firearms owners, would have prevented the 15 March massacre. Principally, what he was referring to was a provision in here about patterns of extremist behaviour. Well, I think it's important for the public record to note the public record, and the public record of that very matter that we have been led to believe now for over a year, is that police were unaware of the online comments of that individual prior to the event. That being the case, there's nothing in here that could have stopped that. I do accept that had they been aware of it, absolutely, the provision would prevent it. But I'd say that you would have struggled to determine him fit and proper in the first place. But to be absolutely clear: can't claim that by adding a couple of provisions and codifying the elements of the fit and proper person test actually would have prevented that event. It wouldn't have. It is unfair on the firearms community to, in effect, indirectly demonise them by claiming that it would have done.