To be fair, we already have the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that to some extent deals with questioning what we do in this House. I think there's some very important differences there. One—and the most important one, I would argue—is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act contains internationally agreed human rights. These are not contentious, subjective, political ideas; they are internationally agreed human rights. Of course, we know, under section 7 of that Act the Attorney-General can make a report about whether or not a bill is consistent with that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So, as I say, there is some similarity, but the big difference is the contested natures of the principles that Mr Seymour just mentioned and I'll come to in a minute.