So I do want to make it totally clear. I recognise the importance of providing business with the confidence to invest in the development of intellectual property and actively make it available to markets. So I just want to make that clear to the member. Robust intellectual property rights incentivise innovation, making them complementary, I would argue, to competition law. Therefore, it's redundant to have carve-outs for intellectual property. Most intellectual property arrangements are helpful to the competitive process, but it does not mean that they should be immune to scrutiny under competition law. The safe harbours make a universal assumption as they stand now that certain practices will never be anti-competitive just because they relate to intellectual property. So that's where the current law stands. And it's a very bold assumption and one that undermines the integrity of our competition law—again, other members believe that without safe harbours the Act will over-penalise and over-deter certain conduct. We can see from the departmental report that officials have made a careful study and that that study challenges any such view. I would argue intellectual property arrangements should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other type of property arrangements. At the very least, I suggest we can be confident this policy will produce far fewer errors than the universal assumption that some conduct is never anti-competitive simply because it involves intellectual property. 