The Minister has been vociferous and has made a cogent argument, with which I do not agree but which I accept is quite strong, on the issue of rights and about how people attain their rights in a modern democracy. He has often cogently articulated his view on the importance of those rights not being written into the Constitution and other such documents but that, nonetheless, people should have access to their rights. What the Minister is doing here runs contrary to that particular argument. He has not given a good reason, he has merely given a logical argument about why a matter should end up in the District Court. I do not disagree with that, but ending up in the District Court when dealing with such issues is quite different from beginning in the District Court.