The amendment definitely has application only to such premises as the Board may come to have possession of and may thereafter cease to possess. Senator Johnson wishes to have an annuity for a period of twenty years, not a perpetual annuity. That is a case that I cannot make any very strong case against, except to say that I prefer to leave it as it is, leaving it on the Board to take action in the event of some considerable amount of property on which they have to pay rates to a considerable figure, falling out of occupation. It would then be for the Board to urge a case, and they can do it with more cogency when they are handicapped in that way than they can at the moment. I think it is better to leave the Board under this bit of a penalty. At the moment it is not a penalty. It will be a penalty only in the event of the premises rated afterwards ceasing to be of any use to them. The Board will have done a considerable amount of improvement in the meantime, and when it will make its case it will be in the position clearly to point to certain premises on which it would have undue charges to pay. I prefer to weight the Bill a little bit against the Board, leaving it to them in the proper circumstances to make a case so that the two Houses will be brought to the point of passing amending legislation. I say that without advertence to the remarks made previously, that no matter what happens to the Board or the property they occupy, within two or three years all the electricity supply legislation will have to be recodified because there is a definite division of sacrifices to be made as between the taxpayers, the ratepayers, and the electricity consumer. I cannot very vehemently urge anything against this amendment of Senator Johnson's, because "twenty years" and "perpetuity" are rather vague. But, as I have already said, I would rather have the Bill a little weighted against the Board.