So, I guess, the concern on this side of the House around this clause is, effectively, that we are confirming a position about the risk of this particular individual, which was an issue which was not actually decided upon by the Supreme Court. They did decide on the point of law and, on that point of law, six hundred and something individuals could be removed—and we're saying, actually, we don't want those people removed; we don't believe that should happen—but, in this particular instance, this individual is being removed by that point of law but we're here, in clause 11, saying we're giving effect to the Supreme Court's decision that the prior legislation was not retrospective enough for this one individual. And, on this side of the House, I don't believe that's something we can accept, and that we should be removing clause 11 and then allowing this individual for the process that all of the other 600 individuals would have to be going through to ensure that their registration is retained, or that decision would have to be made, or clause 8 allows for a prosecutor to apply to the court regarding individuals, around their registration. So that's what we're, effectively, doing and arguing for, and we would appreciate the Minister's views and potential support to that tabled amendment.