On the "who"—I've just heard what he said—I'd make the point to him that we're talking about, as we've heard in the committee, parents wanting an assurance that this is safe. And so surely it's more than simply a question, I'm asking him, of competency; isn't it also a question of good character? And is there a good-character requirement in this? Because we could envisage—and some may say, "Well, they're far-fetched"; I doubt they actually are—scenarios where people with a background in and with a connection to drug offending, or those who may be engaged in those things, could be involved here. Not only could that colour their advice but potentially there'd be other ramifications from that, as well. And will there be, in terms of those people who will get, under new section 35DA in clause 10, the tick from the Director-General of Health, training? Because we'd want to know that actually there's more than just a once over lightly. How will that competency be assessed? Because, you know, I come back to it: parents are wanting an assurance of safety here, and surely you want to make sure that information that's going to them is of the best quality, isn't coloured, isn't too relaxed, but is serious, given we're not just dealing with class C and B drugs; we're dealing with class A drugs, as well, with serious harms.