In relation to that last point, I haven't read the judgement, but I think what was actually found was natural justice had not been provided. That was the basis of it. I think it was a reasonably narrow basis in relation to that procedural fairness. But, as I said, I haven't read the judgement and others will have studied it much more carefully.

In relation to your first question, the government is examining the judgement and engaging with relevant parties, and I'm not in a position to give any further indication.