My question was actually in regard to the role that the Attorney-General will play in relation to possible prosecutions. I note that the Attorney-General himself—the current version thereof—is in the Chamber, and I prefaced my remarks by saying, of course, that I don't cast aspersions on any person who holds that office. The intention merely is to understand the way that those powers would be exercised, and particularly that kind of chicken-and-egg scenario that we've got whereby, as the select committee articulated, the Attorney-General's consent is needed for proceedings for trial and punishment of a person—to use their phrase—but nevertheless certain actions leading up to that can take place in the meantime and perhaps in anticipation of such consent, notwithstanding that such consent hadn't at that time been sought, let alone given. I presume that the reason for that is because it might be out on the high seas or in these various areas in the water delineated by the exclusive economic zone, the territorial sea, and so forth, and that it's not practical to reach out to the Attorney-General and gain his or her—as the case may be—consent to those proceedings. 