I do think that's a concern, as was just mentioned by Professor Milne. A delay is not a neutral position. A delay is something that is significant, and it may be that otherwise eligible young people would not have access, so I think a balance needs to be established here. The challenge, though, is that going forward without these voices is really going forward with a potentially incomplete window into all issues that need to be considered.
So, with humility, we don't know what we don't know, and we don't know what issues or considerations might be raised. I'll leave it to this esteemed committee to decide how to balance that. Perhaps an option might be a staged expansion of access, whereby perhaps you expand it—and again, this is your decision in terms of weighing everything—to 16- and 17-year-olds now, with a stated timeline of when this would be reviewed—so it's not an indefinite re-review—once the more fulsome window into missing voices has been included.
I agree that it's not a neutral position just to indefinitely delay, but it is a concern to be moving forward with insufficient information.
Thank you.