The second point is there is no enforcement mechanism in here. And Rachel Boyack says "Oh, it's going to make a real difference. We're going to enforce plain language." How? There's nothing in there. It's just a series of feel-good statements. It just means that we have to have a plain language officer. Every reporting agency has to have one of them. They have to educate people. They've got to deal with complaints. They have to make reports to the Public Service Commissioner. Oh, we've got to issue guidance! The Public Service Commissioner can issue guidance on how reporting language may—not "must" by the way; it's not a "must". It's not a didactic imperative; it's a "may". So they've given a little bit of discretion. How generous of the member to give some discretion to the commissioner! I reckon the commissioner will choose to do so, though. The commissioner may issue guidance on how reporting—and that's it. It's literally 11 clauses. The first four are the perambulatory ones—the title, the commencement, the purpose, the interpretation, and it binds the Crown. So, actually, in reality, it's six clauses. That's it. It's only, like, four pages. It's a 3½-page, 4 if you're luck, bill. There's no enforcement mechanism, there's no way of making language more accessible and cleaner and simpler. There's nothing in there. There's literally nothing in there. There's no enforcement mechanism. What is the penalty for the poor Public Service officer who writes a briefing note that the Minister doesn't understand? What's the penalty? What's the Minister going to do? Ring up the Public Service Commissioner and say, "Mr Smith, I got this briefing note and I did not understand it. You need to punish him or her." I mean, is that what's going to happen? No, obviously it's not what's going to happen. It's ridiculous. There's no enforcement mechanism.