It's a hard call. It is a hard call.
Like I tried to say a moment ago, I don't think it should be an indefinite halt until there's the most fulsome review of the positions that are missed, and I'm wondering if perhaps a staged approach to increasing access might be a possibility. There's a lot of confidence in 16- and 17-year-olds having this comparable or potentially having the same comparable maturity and capacity as those aged 18. Again, this is vulnerable—and I'll leave that to Cheryl Milne to speak to—to legal challenge, because even allowing access just to 16 and 17 would be considered an arbitrary cut-off. Perhaps as part of a staged expansion you could do something like that, where it's not left with the barrier at 18—