Perhaps I am wasting time since Senator Terry has generously indicated she will withdraw the amendment. However, I have taken note of her point that she believes the liberalisation of the licensing laws was a problem. However, it is concerned more with special exemption orders than the actual closing time of pubs. One curious footnote is that the nightclub industry, which is concerned about all of these issues, sought the abolition of the chicken and chips – the substantial meal – requirement and thought it was making life much easier by not having to adhere to this arrangement. In fact, it opened up the opportunity for every pub to continue in operation as an ordinary pub until 2.30 a.m. This agitation was a fine example of shooting oneself in the foot. The one thing that stopped ordinary publicans from seeking special exemptions into the early hours of the morning was the hassle of having to produce a chef, the chicken and chips, the baskets, the red serviettes and so on. When this was thrown away, it threw open competition and effectively widened the scope of the special exemption order way beyond what had been thought. Talk about spoiling the ship for a ha'p'worth of tar, it economised on the substantial meal and created vast competition for itself. Now the industry is asking me – I am open to persuasion – for a special nightclub licence again because it does not like competition from pubs.