If I can just talk to what the intent of the bill is, it's to ensure that victims of legally insane offenders are treated the same as other victims of crime. The bill changes the formal finding of the court to provide victims with the acknowledgment that the offender was proven to have acted grievously, even if they lacked the intent to be guilty of the action. The bill renames the verdict "not guilty on account of insanity" to "the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". The revised language is intended to acknowledge that the offender did, in fact, commit the criminal act, but that the reasons of insanity therefore mean that they are not guilty. That's quite important. I heard in the previous debate some of the discussion around the use of insanity as a defence, and I think it's really important to make it clear here for everybody in the Whare tonight and listening in that it is not the intention of this bill to actually go back and look at insanity as a grounds for defence. That's entirely separate. It is, in fact, how victims of that are treated and how it might be recorded by the courts. So the revised language is intended to acknowledge that, yes, the offender did commit the criminal acts, but in terms of criminal liability the insanity finding is still there.