So the proposal here is—my sense is, and why we support it, is it just lifts up a notch the level of gravity and consequence for when Parliament decides that it will press ahead with legislation that may be close to the wind or arguably breach the Bill of Rights Act, and Parliament does that on numerous occasions for good reasons. But if the court finds that it has, in its opinion, breached the Bill of Rights Act, this sets up a mechanism where we have to take that seriously and actually come back to the House, not in any flippant way just say "Well, tough luck. That's what we're doing and good luck to you." Instead, we set up a process and actually have to confront that. The Government of the day has to lay out a clear case as to why they think it is justified. And then if the court says it clearly breaches these rights and is it justified, is that breach justified, it may come to the conclusion that it doesn't think it is justified, and the House might say, "Well, sorry, we do think it is justified." Ultimately, I think that's appropriate in the system that we have and if the people don't agree, like I say, it will be thrown out. 