I'm going to give you my opinion on those two terms. One refers to a mandatory review, which does not mean that that will be conducted, but nor does it mean that changes would be made if a review were conducted.
Furthermore, the sunset clause requires that the act be reviewed; otherwise it becomes null and void. I'm wondering whether the two concepts are incompatible. I don't think so. I think that there could be a review of the act, first of all, but that there should always be a sunset clause to provide assurance. In other words, I'm talking about a belt and suspenders. I think there is a dangerous precedent in front of us. As I mentioned earlier, the Veterans Charter was quickly passed, and we subsequently saw that there were problems. And it is subsequently difficult to correct them.
Do you think my belt-and-suspenders approach is a good approach, in view of the fact that we could make a mistake and that it's better for us to take more precautions than not enough?