I'll try to make it very quick. I agree we should go ahead and hear the presentation, but there is the issue of the exercise of discretion. Statutory discretion, of course, is there and it's there for good reason, as Mr. Walsh has said. The act of governance has to bring coherence, and sometimes it means looking at different interests in different ways and mediating them.
But discretion as a matter of administrative fairness, so that it doesn't become arbitrary, should be following some objective guidelines in order that people are treated fairly, that different cases are distinguishable and similar cases are treated similarly. So the problem you describe and the confusion is because we don't always do that well in government, and we should. We should do it better in terms of transparency and fair process and objective criteria, so that we can distinguish between things that are different and things that are the same and make sure that everybody gets procedural fairness.
That's why you need a federal ombudsman or, in this case, I think a federal officer of Parliament to help us out with those, to help MPs with some of those, to ensure that the executive has those administrative processes properly thought out and codified.