So I want to turn first to the question of just what is already out there. What is it that makes me say we just don't need a separate offence? And I want to take you to section 9 of the Sentencing Act, because it is section 9(fa) that states that if the victim is a constable or a police officer acting in the course of their duty, that is an aggravating feature. And then section 9(fb) states that if the victim was an emergency health worker or fire service worker acting in the course of their duty that is also an aggravating feature. We are already capable of dealing with this problem on behalf of those vital members of our society, our first responders. And what's more, the point of having them as aggravating features rather than as a discrete offence—and particularly this offence, but I will come to that. The point of having this as an aggravating feature means that we actually are able to cover the full gamut. So not just injuring with intent to injure. Why is it not possible and why is it not relevant to the member opposite, for example, that a constable is assaulted in the course of his duty or her duty? Why is it not relevant to the member opposite that a constable is threatened with grievous bodily harm or even a threat to kill? These things are not covered. Apparently the only thing that matters is injuring with intent to injure. The beauty of treating it as an aggravating feature is that it gives the judge that flexibility. Now, I will come back to that point of flexibility so I would like you to hold on to that thought, because I really take issue with Mr Bridges for what he said earlier. Flexibility in judging is one of the beauties of our system.