I think the construction of clause 11, if I've understood its effect correctly, may erroneously—and that is to say: in a way that's unintended—excuse or exempt that particular person who was the appellant in that case from such judgment going forward. God forbid that he should behave in such a way again that would place in danger the children of New Zealand, such that that would even become a relevant question. I hope that it's a merely academic point. I hope that it's a moot point. But, nevertheless, it's an important one for constitutional reasons, and I give credit to the ACT member Nicole McKee for having raised it in this committee. That's an additional argument in favour of the withdrawal, the removal, of clause 11, as has been recommended, and indeed tabled, by Simeon Brown. 