Right. I'm trying to understand what would trigger that. We had a bit of this discussion before, but I was still left unclear as to where the trigger point is for the government to say that the courts are not actually a good place to have this happen and that a tribunal goes ahead. Are there criteria that are imagined in this act?
I looked for it in the bill, and it doesn't necessarily say what shall a tribunal make or when does it stay in court. It seems like a tribunal is somehow more important, is more all-encompassing or something. I'm not sure even what the real differences will be to the public, but why would the government decide one way or the other? I don't know if this criteria applied or is suggested.