Minister, I've heard a lot of huffing and puffing on this and I think it's perhaps time for a little bit of perspective on this. This is a judgment that's based purely on the papers submitted for a preliminary application for a judicial review. It's not a binding judgment, it does not set any particular precedent, but there are one or two particular points in it that are quite important. 

It raised the issue of justiciability, but what the judge very clearly says is this: he said, 'Well if it is justiciable, they have complied with the Act in any event.' That is, they did apply the well-being objectives and have satisfied them. That, in itself, confirms that the Act has actually worked in this case in terms of the culture and the processes that were actually gone through. I was involved in the early stages of this legislation and there were many arguments on this legislation as to how such a difficult area could be drafted, but this has been commended at United Nations level. Now, the real test of the effect it's having and how it's working is when we have an opportunity to debate the annual report of the sustainability commissioner, and you can look at the overall picture. 

I actually commend the legislation, because I think it is important legislation, and it's a little bit disappointing that this rather preliminary judgment that would probably have been appealed if it wasn't for the finding that the Act has been complied with in any event—. And it may be at a future stage that the justiciability issue needs to be looked at, but I don't think that is any grounds for undermining and some of the poisonous and bilious comments that have been made about the individual involved, the sustainability commissioner, which I think is very regrettable in this case.