I think the concern that I'm articulating is that we would have what was intended to be the same obligation associated with various decisions under the act now subject to different legal obligations, or at least differently defined legal obligations.
I think the concern is that if a decision made under one of those provisions was challenged in a judicial review, the fact that there are different definitions in the act could lead to an unintended outcome. I don't think I can point to a very specific implication other than the risk of uncertain outcomes as a result of what would be an inconsistent approach to precaution in the statute.
Again, I remind you that the definition hasn't been challenged or the exercise of precaution hasn't been challenged to date.