Thank you.
I have a little problem with this notion that we're trying to debunk myths that the opposition may be trying to create by asking questions. It is the role of the people on this side to ask questions, and if it is seen as creating myths, well, I'm sorry about that, but that is certainly not the intent. The intent is to have facts on the table, and from facts make a judgment on the legislation that is before us.
Indeed the matter of SMS is being proposed as an addition-to and top-up. There are no changes to the regulatory requirements that have been presented so far. I hope we all agree on that. That's how it's been presented. They have been in place, even though the legislation has not. I think everybody acknowledges that too.
Am I correct so far? Would anybody care to say that was not the case, that SMSs are not in place now? All right. They are in place, not in legislation, but they are in place in actuality.
So if indeed the consequence of those, and that's what we need to ascertain, is a reduction in the number of inspectors, is the link there obvious? Are there fewer inspectors? Let's find out. And if so, is it because we have SMSs? And then in that case, there's a judgment call to be made, and that's the purpose of asking these questions, not to debunk myths or create them.
Does anyone care to comment on that?