I gather on the other bill in relation to the definition of “danger” there has been testimony that the current definition is very ambiguous, and the proposed one is aligned with case law, and yet there are some things in the current definition that are very clear, very explicit. For example, it says “and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system”.
I guess if your plan is to take those out, surely a court would assume you have a reason for changing the wording and for taking things out. I'm wondering what kind of background there has been to try to assess what the impact of that would be, of removing words of that sort.