I would make a couple of points. You characterized her remarks quite accurately. What has happened is that there's been lot discussion, I would say, in various forums, including Parliament, the media and online, and a lot more engagement by people who may not necessarily have been interested in the first round. We heard a lot of consultation in the first round. The formal submissions in writing that we got were very useful, but I wouldn't say they were numerous.
The discussion that we have heard and that is of interest covers a wide spectrum, but I'd say the most important ones are the range of offences. Under the draft policy, there are ranges of offences being added. There has been discussion about maybe some additional ideas on that front, and then some discussion around the length of time in play. Right now the current policy is 10 years, with a possibility of reducing it to five, I believe. Under the draft policy, you're looking at a regime that is up to 10 years in the way it has been drafted. Is that the right approach? There's lots of discussion on that front as well. Those are the first two off the top of my head.
Michael, is there anything you want to add to that list?