I think it's important to remember that the entire design, almost the default, is publication. The entire design is to emphasize transparency. That was very much intentional. When you're dealing with the prosecution of criminal matters, it's anathema to do it behind closed doors. When you're dealing with holding, potentially, a large corporation responsible for an offence like corruption or bribery, the public would demand that there be transparency and that they would understand what's taking place. That's very much the default, very much the expectation for the application of this regime.
I see it as a very exceptional instance when a confidentiality order is issued. A judge would issue it, and judges, in my experience, are also very aware of the need to be transparent and open in their proceedings. I see it as being a very exceptional case that a judge would be convinced that, for some short time period, in order to assist the police or the prosecution in another matter.... It's difficult to come up with somewhat speculative scenarios, but we wanted to leave that open for a judge to so order. If the disclosure of the contents of the remediation agreement—which will disclose the facts that, as agreed upon, established the culpability of the corporation—would interfere with an ongoing investigation, given that the purpose of this whole thing is to advance investigations, we thought it was sensible to allow the judges to have that discretion to order a confidentiality order.