Can I come to the point that was made by the previous speaker, Clare Curran, who said we should not support the specific identification in our Crimes Act of the crime of a coward punch—that we shouldn't do that, that as a matter of principle that is bad law? Well, I ask this question: why, then, has this Government specifically provided for an offence of strangulation? If the way in which the person dies is completely irrelevant to the Crimes Act, then why would we specifically in the law provide for the particularly ugly crime of strangulation, because if it's good enough for Parliament to put on the law books our abhorrence of the crime of strangulation, it is equally appropriate for this Parliament to say that the particular crime of the coward punch is something that we do not want. 