The question that I have, though, of course, one of my observations, having been in Parliament now for 10 years, is that I don't know what the exact ratio is, but quite often legislation passed by this House actually has the opposite effect of what was intended. Life is complex and, particularly in regulations, we set out to do one thing, we pass a law, and actually, it turns out that the consequence was completely unintended, and it's something quite different. That has been raised by a number of submitters in regard to this one, which is to say, in relation to turning a pre-trial recording of a cross examination maybe a year or maybe two years before it actually goes to trial from something that is rare and exceptional into potentially standard practise could have the unintended consequence of, well, first, turning that situation into an area of great legal confrontation and debate and a fair amount of legal drama around that. But then given the fact that it may well be that quite often it is judged as necessary, on basic rights to justice, to recall that complainant back for the actual trial, you might end up having made the attempt to reduce re-traumatisation of complainants, actually getting to a situation where more often they're doubly retraumatised as a matter of course.