In this task, you will be presented with a premise and a hypothesis sentence. Determine whether the hypothesis sentence entails (implies), contradicts (opposes), or is neutral with respect to the given premise sentence. Please answer with "Contradiction", "Neutral", or "Entailment".

[Q]: Premise: Christine Milne led the Australian Greens from 2012 until 2015. During this period, a select number of members of the parliamentary party served as official spokespersons for the party both inside and outside of Parliament on various issues, each member being assigned portfolios for their speaking duties. This allows the Greens to shadow government policies and actions from the party perspective. <sep> Hypothesis: . This allows the Greens to hide government policies and actions from the party perspective.

[A]: Entailment

[Q]: Premise: Mr. Lessig, on your First Amendment argument I don't see where the retroactivity-prospectivity comes in, because -- I follow your argument under the Copyright Clause, but if you're saying that the time is too long, the public domain should get this stuff sooner rather than later, would you explain to me how your prospectivity-retrospective line fits into your First Amendment claim? <sep> Hypothesis: Mr. Lessig made an argument which was predicated on a US founding document
[A]: Entailment

[Q]: Premise: The port authority may establish a certain fashion of operation based on the bylaws that are in place now in the neighbouring municipality or jurisdiction and then all of a sudden, if that jurisdiction were to change its bylaws, it could cause the port authority to have to make substantial and profound changes in the way it operates. <sep> Hypothesis: It would be completely illegal for the port authority to change any of its bylaws that would alter their operations.
[A]:
Contradiction