First of all, the part of the bill that speaks to corrections and courts. This was very much around audio and audiovisual, and it is a component of: can we create legislation or enable legislation that allows audio to be a part of the courts and corrections? And then it expanded to, well, if there's audio, there's actually more likely to be audiovisual, and that's a more fair representation of what we're trying to achieve. So it then jumped to "and audiovisual". Then the New Zealand Bar Association and others also commented that there must be the right, on behalf of those who are in front of the process, to decline either of those. I think we only learnt or got to that sort of material from some of the legal submitters, who really did improve and fine-tune the bill.