 Good afternoon, everyone. My thanks to you for waiting. I just had some other matters that I had to attend to. I understand that the purpose of this media conference is to discuss the Government's response to the discipline review. I just start off by outlining that there were in fact two reviews. The initial review was conducted by the CMC in terms of the police discipline process, and from memory the CMC came up with 11 recommendations One of those recommendations, the third one, recommended further work, and the Government committed to that further work by establishing the independent panel that's referred to in today's media release, and that work commenced in March this year. That group came up with their own review, which had 57 recommendations, as indicated in the Government's media release today. In respect of both reviews, the CMC review and the independent panel's review, the police service made a submission to the Government in relation to that, and I'm sure that was considered by Cabinet. And of course, this media release today indicates that the Government's position has been identified, but I haven't had time yet to read the Government's position in respect of what I assume, of course, is both reviews. I'll try and do that later today. Other matters, of course, understandably, I'm sure you would appreciate overtaken this for me at the moment. But can I say that obviously it's an important matter, and we totally support that the police discipline system does indeed need to be transparent. It needs to be straightforward as it possibly can be, and what is sometimes an adversarial legislative process. It needs to have public confidence, and it needs, certainly, to be something that occurs far quicker than is often the case now. Some of the things, of course, we'll have to look at will be the resourcing implications for the service. And obviously the Government, if they set policy, we're duty bound, of course, to comply with Government policy, which we will. There's no argument about that. I believe that some of these changes may well require legislative changes, and of course until that legislative change is in place that couldn't be proceeded with. But just with those few words, I'm happy to take questions that you have. Can you expand on resourcing implications? Do you have concerns that resourcing will be hit? I think it's fairly clear that one of the recommendations that's been supported is the idea of regional investigative teams. And that's probably, for me at the moment, the one that I need to turn my mind to the most. We have eight police regions, so how large those teams are likely to be, how many officers would be required. And clearly in our larger regions, which are the South East region, the north side of Brisbane particularly, but also the North Coast region, we have something like 1,500 police, compared to other smaller regions numerically, where we might have six or 700. So the numbers presumably will vary. But then what you have to factor in distance and travel as well. So we'll need to do an assessment of the numbers, and then work out where those numbers are going to come from, how we're going to provide them, and how soon we can do that. I think you said it may result in police being pulled from the bigger, the two bigger regions, where's the need to sell them? No, I'm sorry if I misled you. Now what I was saying was that there are eight police regions. My understanding is that the government have supported the concept of regional investigative teams to be based, you know, at regional headquarters. Officers of the eight police regions, and my point was only that some of the regions are much larger than others. So for example, the North Coast region, which takes in six districts, or Redcliffe, Kabalsha, the Sunshine Coast, Gimping, Meribur and Bundaberg, and has 1,500 police, may need more investigators than a region such as the Northern region, which takes in primarily Townsville and Mount Islay, and has about six or seven hundred officers here. What do you think of the reform to allow the CNC to override the decision-making and assistant commissioner? Look, I think that's, was that from the Sunday Mail story this morning? Yeah. Yeah. Look, with the greatest respect, I think that I'd rather not comment on the Sunday Mail story. I'd rather see the actual detail in terms of the government response, but certainly that was part of the recommendations of the independent review, that there'd be an ability by the CNC, as I understood it, to seek to have a substitute sanction or result put into place, but I'd need to get a full appreciation of the detail of about how it is proposed that will occur and work, what legislative framework would be put into place to enable it, and really what the practical implications of it are. And I'm sorry that I'm not in a position to comment on at this stage, but I am happy to do so in the future, when we've had a bit of chance to fully consider these matters and advise you of any implications for us. Just in relation to the Slaks Creek House Fire, if we can, where are the investigations currently up to there, and what is the plan for police over the next few days? I'm sorry, could you, I just missed the first part of it. The Slaks Creek House Fire. The Slaks Creek Fire. Obviously, those investigations are ongoing, and as is the case with any fatal fire, there will be a report to the coroner, and I would imagine that this is going to take a long, long time to put together. It's such a horrific thing, and the loss of life is, of course, has been reported, apparently, the worst house fire fatality anywhere in Australian history. So I would think this will take months and months to finalise the investigation. So you're saying that the cause is unknown? I'm not aware that the cause has been definitively established, but even if we were, the proper process is that we would not disclose the cause. We would complete our investigation in its totality, and the judicial entity, if you like, that has responsibility for determining this matter, ultimately, as the coroner. So the steps would be that we'd prepare a report for the coroner, and it would be the coroner who would ultimately make the determination about causal factors. Do you have a preliminary sort of idea of what may have caused the fire? I think my understanding is that the police involved in this do not believe, do not believe that there are any suspicious circumstances at all. I think that's a really important point to make, and that's been restated, and I feel confident, absolutely, in their judgment in that regard. That being the case, then, the cause is some cause of an accidental unintentional nature, presumably, but the precise nature of that is still, in my view, yet to be fully determined. Some states, they don't, like, fire would go at some electrical fault, and maybe you get told that, or whatever it is. Yes. Like something like that, or is that not going to happen this time? No, that possibility is within scope in terms of the causal factors. So it could be months before that house is removed, it's not like they should be... Yeah, good question. It's such a sad scene, as an insight. The investigation will be complete soon in terms of the house, so we won't need access to the house again in the very near future. And I would imagine that the aspect of what happens then to the house would be the determination of the owner of the residence and the Logan Council. You're aware if police are being able to identify into body or how long that process will take? My understanding is that that would not have been completed as yet. That is a very difficult task, in generally speaking, that could involve dental examination and or DNA. Yes. Do you have any idea how long that process will take before the bodies can be returned to the family? Look, it will be done as soon as we possibly can and can I say we're extremely grateful to the family and the broader Pacific Island community for their understanding of the processes that we have to go through. But it is absolutely essential that before a body is released for a service, that we have the identification of that person correct. And I would ask and seek the further understanding and patience of the family in that regard. I think everyone would appreciate that, that you simply cannot second and guess at this and we have to be certain when we release people for a service that we have identification positively confirmed. Okay, positive identification on the end. Is it three people? Look, I'm sorry, I don't know. That may be so. If the information is able to be released after the family are advised and the coroner gives approval, we will make that information available. I thank you for your time today.