In the end, I think, fundamentally and unanimously, the committee agreed with "intimidate", and I would say, as we say in the report there, the case law is clear on that. So it's a particular word that is well understood in our courts, and internationally that's accepted. The Australias, the Canadas, and, I think, the United Kingdoms of this world—it's the same in their terrorist laws. To those who oppose that, I would simply say—again, as I think we say in the committee report, or at least the majority of the report—that that's hardly Draconian. It's still a high threshold. I think Andrew Little made the point that the Crown still has to prove intent to cause death or serious harm in, the advancement of an ideological, a political, or a religious cause as well as that intent if this law passes—which I'm sure it will—to intimidate a population. It's not as if it's an easy thing for the Crown to prove.