One of the problems is that it takes away some of the responsibility to create a technologically neutral act in the first place, because people think they can just fix it again when they reopen it five years later. That's one problem.
Another problem is that it's very politically expedient. I get that. Everybody's coming here. There are 182 witnesses. They all want something, and you can't give everybody everything they want, so it's very nice to say, come back in five years and we'll talk again. It's very politically expedient, but it just means everybody lines up every five years and asks for the same thing. I've been around this for only 15 years, not as long as some of my colleagues here, and really, it's tiring. It's just the same debate over and over again. It's not very helpful.
I think those are really the main two problems. It's a disincentive to draft technologically neutral principles in the first place, and it just gets us on this constant hamster wheel of lobbying.
I'm not saying the act doesn't need to be reopened, but every five years.... The other part about this is that we don't even know. The implementation of the last reforms is just working its way through the court. All of the regulations to tie up the loose ends from the last batch of reforms aren't even in place yet. There was a Supreme Court decision in the last couple of months dealing with the notice and notice provisions.
It's just too soon. We don't know if things are working or not working yet.