I have two questions for us to consider as we consider this bill. The first is: what is the rights balancing exercise that is before us? We've heard a lot of discussion tonight about this issue of retrospectivity and how we should consider it best. I think it's really important, first, to consider that when Parliament first considered these amendments, it had the benefit of the Attorney-General's reports which considered this possible incursion into the rights of people to know the law and for the law to be knowable. The Attorney-General provided his advice at the time about how that may be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My point here is that Parliament passed that amendment with the full view of the Attorney-General's advice. It knew exactly what it was doing in considering the retrospective nature of those provisions at the time; it chose to do that anyway—that is the role of parliamentarians. At the time, that rights balancing exercise was required. We needed to consider whether or not that retrospectivity was balanced in this situation. We did; we've had that debate, and it is appropriate that tonight we correct the drafting error which didn't reflect that intention of Parliament at the time.