The considerations we were attempting to put forward were about the use of consistent language that would ensure the fundamental obligations that we see as important, which this law sets out, are followed through on. This would mean they're understood and can actually be lived out.
As for the possibility of ambition being expressed in a way that maybe isn't the exact way that it's understood in the specific obligations, it's a consideration around interpretability and legibility, but fundamentally the ambition that was proposed in the subamendment is the same.