Exactly.
There is one other thing I want to move to very quickly. When I review section 161 and the proposed amendments to it—and Michael, you would know, section 161 dealing with “Order of prohibition”—my review of the legislation is that there's no requirement for a judge to give any reason why they are not going to impose those conditions. We've put that in the other sections, but we didn't put that in section 161. So if a judge chooses not to impose a geographic condition under section 161, they don't have to refer to it at all, as this legislation is currently drafted.
To my mind we should be asking for a similar thing, that a judge at least put that on the record to show that they turned their mind to that geographic restriction. This would address some of the concerns we heard from people on Tuesday. They said, “It happened. It wasn't considered and no one talked about it. How's that possible?” Would you be supportive of requiring a judge to at least put on the record why that was not imposed?