I want to return to the point that we already extensively screen people from abroad, allegedly to screen out so-called marriages of convenience. So why are we doing it a second time at great expense and difficulty inland, with this conditional sponsorship?
Unless there is an idea on the table to get rid of or very much diminish the overseas screening, I'm not sure there is much basis for retaining the two-year conditional sponsorship anyway. Without the conditional sponsorship we will not confront the problem you are now raising for us, which is, what happens when women are not believed?