I am actually quite shocked by that, considering the fact that recently the Supreme Court ruled D v Police [2021] SC 2 that National's 2017 amendments, in a 3:2 decision—it wasn't as if it was actually a unanimous decision; it was a 3:2 split on that bill; there were some members of the Supreme Court who actually felt that the intention was very, very clear, but it was actually the majority of three against two who said that the intention wasn't as clear. This is the reason why we need to make sure that this bill—I am putting my fingers crossed, my legs crossed, my eyes crossed, my everything crossed—that we do actually get the wording right, because sometimes as members of Parliament, as Government, we intend for the bill to work, and when it goes out into the real world and the Supreme Court decides that it is not as clear, we have to come back and do this process again. This is the third time that this has been done for this particular bill, and I'm not going to delay the process.