I think there are some issues around the evidentiary requirements in terms of those applications. They've raised some issues.
The issue about the evidence to rebut the presumption is a significant issue, and I think there is some level of impracticality about it that would lead to protracted problems on the ground. This may be another reason it would be valuable to step back and try to be more comprehensive, thorough, and careful with these amendments, so that in fact they'll save those protracted disputes over rebutting presumptions and so on when the proposed bill is not very clear.