It's to “protect the Prime Minister”. Those are your words.
I'll move on to another question.
It's often said that decisions are made in the general interest of the public. However, the line is thin right now. The head of Brookfield came to tell us that when Brookfield gets richer, the Prime Minister gets richer.
At what point has a line been crossed?
How do we know that the decision was made in the public interest? How do we know if the decision was heavily influenced by a potential private interest of general application?
At what point has the line been crossed and led people to say, “Oops, we crossed the line; this isn't working”?