First, I don't think that is an accurate reflection of what Ms O'Neil said. Second, the government has been very promptly seeking to deal with a decision that does, as Senator Paterson himself indicated, overturn a 20-year precedent, and, as a consequence, a set of changes are likely to be required in relation to the framework that was your framework, as well as the framework under which we've been operating and the High Court has now said is unconstitutional in this regard. I would note—and I do sound a note of caution—that as yet the High Court has not handed down its reasons for the decision. No doubt those will need to be studied as well when that does occur because this does represent a very substantial change in position from what was understood by your government. (Time expired)