The other aspect to my question—I'll just see if I can fit them in effectively in the same contribution—is about the acknowledgment that is made with the discloser's entitlement to protection. This is clause 11. This really goes to the heart of the purpose of the legislation. Of course, we're talking about protecting disclosures and protecting disclosers—those who blow the whistle and also the whole idea of protecting for the sake of the system or the community, more generally—the pointing out of wrongdoing or bad behaviour and so forth. So in subclause (4) of clause 11, we've got the note there that the "discloser is entitled to protection even if … they are mistaken and there is no serious wrongdoing". I just want to highlight that I think it's important for everyone to understand that a person can blow the whistle, thinking that they are doing the right thing and that they're pointing out some great flaw that might cost life or limb, and I think I'm right in saying that if they do that with a reasonable or an honest belief that there is serious wrongdoing, notwithstanding that they're mistaken, then that would protect them from the consequence of otherwise mistakenly blowing the whistle, be that in relation to defamation or a breach of contractual obligation to maintain confidence and so on.