Given that we've just had a discussion at first reading, I thought my contribution this time would be best to respond to some of the issues that are raised. I've noted that there have been two alternative propositions put by the Opposition: one is that it's inappropriate for the powers to be used by the Minister of Health rather than the Director-General of Health, which is the proposition that has been put by some members of the National Party. And the proposition put by David Seymour from the ACT Party has said that it's appropriate that it move from the Director-General of Health to the Minister of Health, because that's more aligned with democratic accountabilities and also, as David Seymour says, triggers some other judicial review rights that might not otherwise be as easy for litigants to pursue. I'm not so sure of that second point. But in respect of the first point, I actually agree with David Seymour. It's also a point that has been made by legal academics that this framework that was put in the Health Act many, many decades ago is actually now old-fashioned, and that the better view—