RACHEL BROOKING: That's right. Mine's a particularly geeky pleasure there. So by E. M. Thomas, it was a dissertation for her Honours in a Bachelor of Laws degree at the fine University of Otago. It was dated October 2011, and it's called "'Tinkering in the Constitutional Shed': The Regulatory Standards Bill and Legislative Quality in New Zealand." I would just like to quote from the conclusion of that thesis—and it's important to note that this thesis is talking about the same principles that are in the bill before us now. It says, "The [Regulatory Standards Bill's] principles are controversial and are of uncertain scope and dubious orthodoxy. This is exemplified by the takings principle. The RSB [Regulatory Standards Bill] would not meet its own standards as the principles are vague, unclear and likely to destabilise New Zealand's law. In turn, this would undercut the rule of law." And it goes on.