On the point that I've appealingly described as a constitutional point, but bear with me, I do want to acknowledge the interaction which I regard as very positive in itself between the Attorney-General and the Parliament through the select committee. The member in charge of the bill is nodding and I'm pleased that she acknowledges that point, and other colleagues have spoken on that—I think approvingly in every case, notwithstanding that other views on the bill may differ. So I think it's positive that the Attorney-General, having given a report on the inconsistency of the bill as introduced with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, then became subject of the dialogue between the select committee and the Attorney-General such that he suggested, I think, a couple of amendments. I think the suggestion came from him, and I think I'm receiving affirmation again from the member in charge of the bill. The select committee responded by making, essentially, the suggestions that are amended. So I would say on that basis that the bill is better than it was. But of course, in order to cast a vote in favour of a piece of legislation, to me, at least, the test is not whether merely that it is better but that it is good enough and specifically that its positives are not outweighed by its negatives.