It is essential to remove the legal uncertainty that arose from the resignation, particularly with regard to the matter of costs. I note the Minister of State made the point that we do not want to prejudice anything in terms of what the judge might do, but certainty in regard to that matter must exist. I agree with Senator Walsh's questioning of the retrospection aspect. I have been a Member of this House for several years and I recall very few Bills where there was such a degree of retrospection. I accept that retrospection is essential, but I hope it does not lead to another cavalry charge to the four gold mines in terms of somebody challenging that aspect. I do not understand the reason for a provision in section 2(1) which states, ". shall, for that purpose, have regard to any report of the tribunal relating to its proceedings in the period before his or her appointment". I would have thought it was axiomatic that the judge would have such regard without the need for that to be specified in legislation, although it creates a standing for the reports that were prepared earlier and those reports are to be welcomed. I wonder about the necessity for that provision.