I accept that that is a possible result of leaving subsection (6) as it stands. However, that subsection is part of the total package of clause 255, which includes the specific provision, under subsection (3), of good reasons for making an exclusion. They are,

''(a) to meet his reasonable living expenses, or

(b) to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation''.

Circumstances will arise where the restraint order will bite on associated property, with the consequence that, prior to that property's being disentangled at the final hearing, the person who owns a large chunk of it may be unable to make his living. He will apply for an exclusion. Subsection (6) currently provides a considerable weight of balance in his favour when that matter comes to be considered. The Minister's change in wording moves the balance in favour of the enforcement authority. Is that fair?