The bill itself actually is quite short. It runs five clauses, it has one schedule that is of one singular part. But even though it's a short bill, it is still an effective one none the less. And I want to just point to clause 5(1), which identifies the standard. And I know that Mr Muller, as part of the committee of the whole House stage did introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to amend what was introduced. And there was a lot of conversation in the select committee. I did join the conversation as a member of the select committee for that purpose as well at that time, and where Mr Muller, with the agreement of the committee of the whole House, has landed is that it's appropriate to reference a standard that will be accurate in the New Zealand context but also in the Australian context. And as he has said, the point of difference is that they're at different stages—it's the same standard—of status across the Tasman. But clause 5(1), in terms of that part of the bill, effectively, allows for that to happen under the Fair Trading Act, whereas clause 5(3) is an easy mechanism to make changes. So where standards might be either added to, or they might be varied, or indeed they may be replaced, there wouldn't be a need, a desire, or a requirement to have to bring this back through the Parliament to give effect to that change. It could simply be done by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—I've often referred to that as the "Minister of or for Fair Go"—to progress that as he or she sees fit. So I think clause 5 of the bill, even though it's a—well, quite a big part of the bill, because it's a small bill, is still important none the less.