What the confusion is about is that, as a first point, it will give the employer a review right that they already have. So if there is a new injury and not a re-injury, then that review right is already there. If there is a re-injury, it will, effectively, create a new review right over decisions on entitlements like treatment, and that is very important because it is something that is explicitly barred by the Accident Compensation Act. It will create confusion as to which is the correct empowering provision for employers to be able to challenge work-related cover decisions. It will create potential privacy issues for claimants, and this may actually be one of the more significant issues with this bill, other than creating confusion and conflicting with the original Act, because, of course, privacy issues when it comes to health are hugely important. Decisions on entitlements are made considering a claimant's need for rehabilitation and compensation based on evidence and expert assessment. What this bill would do is it would basically have any current or former employer entitled to ongoing clinical and health information, and that is a real concern. Employers would need to see a claimant's clinical information, information about their health, to challenge an entitlement decision, and that causes significant privacy issues.