SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I've just tabled an amendment to this bill, which, effectively, removes clause 11 so as to ensure that this legislation doesn't actually provide a particular exception for the particular individual in the Supreme Court case. I believe there's a number of reasons why this particular tabled amendment should be considered by the committee of the whole House, and that first and foremost my reading of the judgment indicates that this judgment discussed two issues: the first was the issue of retrospectivity, in which it found that the Parliament was not clear enough in its intent and therefore quashed, effectively, the registration for this particular individual and said he is not eligible to be placed on the register. The Supreme Court then went on and debated other issues, which included whether it was legitimate to take into account updating reports of the clinical psychologist who treated the appellant since his original sentencing.