I think that for the exact same reasons Mr. Johns has pointed out, they're reasons why I would not recommend the passage. This is really the key clause, the key article here. What this will do—Mr. Johns made it very clear—is that they're not going to wait for even the PSIC determination, which has a lower standard and which is more accessible to the complainant, and will go straight to the tribunal, which has a higher standard. It requires a higher cost not only for the complainant, but also for those who are being accused of doing the wrongdoing and would benefit from support to defend themselves, which of course would mean higher costs.
Anyhow, that's my view on this. Again, I would love to ask our officials if they could please comment on the implications of carrying clause 19.