This is a complex area of the law and one of the changes that we looked at—actually several times; there were three iterations—was the verdict itself. So I just want to spend a bit of time and then perhaps ask a question on that. So as some have traversed, after the bill received its original second reading on 12 May, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General on behalf of the bench stating that they had concerns and then it was referred back to select committee. So the three iterations that we had—the first one included a reference to "acts and omissions" and also included a reference to the "defendant". The second, when it came back to the House, initially included the words "proven but insane" and where we are now as we've revisited the definition is a unanimous position on the way forward, which I do think is extraordinary, but also does justice to the balance that we need to strike in this place. And that is the wording that the "act [is] proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity".