And, by the way, this House should recognise and respect the role of our courts and our judges and our court system, but there is a separation, and the only thing that I've heard this Minister stand up and say is that, because the Supreme Court and the High Court made judgments and they don't like this legislation and they don't like the fact that they've lost some of their discretion—I don't think their voice should be any louder than the voice of the public or the victims or those that come in front of the committee and took the time to make submissions against this bill, groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust or the Dairy and Business Owners Group, which are facing ram-raids and assaults and attacks and armed robberies. We saw an armed robbery in the middle of the day in Queen Street, where members of the public felt like they had to try and make an intervention. Thank God no one was hurt or killed in that situation. The Minister said, "Oh, we're worried about a disproportionate outcome, or we're worried about offenders or defendants not being able to do a plea deal because the three-strikes legislation might get in the way." What a perverse reason to put up to support them wanting to repeal this Act. What a perverse reason—that they want to protect a defendant's right to be able to negotiate some sort of plea deal, against the victim's right to justice. I think that is a disgrace. The Minister would not actually stand and respond to that when I put it to her.