I think it was always intended to treat risk group two differently than risk groups three and four.
I just want to address that. We did listen to stakeholders, and we did adjust the bill in light of stakeholder input.
On the security clearance, it's actually quite an interesting piece. Originally we had, in clause 33, concerning security clearances, all risk group three and risk group four. The language was adjusted so that it was for select pathogens and toxins, because we wanted to have the flexibility for risk group three so that we might not have to include all of them. But now it is being read as, “Well, are you including risk group two?”
It was really because we heard that even putting risk groups three and four didn't give the flexibility, so through consultation in the regulations it would allow some flexibility to only determine select risk group three.
We also heard from them about the issue of students and others needing security clearance, and we actually included in clause 33 allowance for a complement of individuals who do not have security clearance in the labs. The intent is not to have security clearance for risk group two. The intent of that sentence was actually to give more flexibility to be more specific on specific pathogens. Whilst doing that, then, obviously some people found that the intent for risk group two isn't evident. But that was the intent.
If there are issues with the wording, we have actually made some changes because of it.