I refer—and it's been mentioned in the debate today—to section 21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act. It there talks about the prohibited elements of prejudice and discrimination. In that, though, it outlines, from one to, I think, six points there, the detail of that. The full extent of that definition has not been captured in this bill, but what I'm leading on to is that the recommendation for the amendment by the select committee to the definition of "disabled person" was so that it aligns with the Human Rights Act, but also aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So the definition under the Human Rights Act is way more expansive in scope than what is encompassed under this amendment to the District Court Act. But in saying that, it captures the intent of ensuring that those "disabled persons" align with those captured under the United Nations convention. It's beyond more than someone who is just physically disabled. It looks at the impairment or the loss or the abnormality of the anatomical functioning, which is the disability, but it also captures, under the United Nations convention—which I would consider this amendment does as well, because it's aligned to that—psychological disability or impairment and intellectual disability or impairment. 