The truth is it got a clean bill of rights vet. Simon Bridges may disagree with that, but that feels disingenuous to say that that's not valid and that his opinion is more valid than their work, backed up by the Law Commission. The truth is that the law committee heard those—you know, the defendant lawyers are very persuasive, I've got to say, in their evidence, and they were disturbed and wanted to make sure that actually there were not bill of rights concerns, and they sent the evidence form the defence lawyers back to get a second check, and it came back clear.