It may well be that in a subsequent hearing, the law as changed by this law change may also be found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I know there were submitters who said that. There is judicial reasoning from previous cases that actually upheld the 1993 law as being consistent with the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that remains an arguable point. I think the balance is struck well here, and it's the right thing to do. 