The manifesto commitment point that others have made across the House—and then, almost in the same breath, criticised National and ACT for having brought in the regime on the basis of a manifesto commitment—yeah, we can trade this kind of observation all day long, but I don't think it does much good. I don't think it's much of an argument to say that it is enough that a party has promised to repeal a law. Of course, that's unhelpful from a mandate point of view, and I do acknowledge that. The Government, now occupying the benches, of course, won the last election. That's why they're there, and included in their manifesto was a commitment to repeal. So that, so far as it goes, is fair enough. But they also have a mandate to protect victims, not only because that's what most reasonable people would say should be a role of the State, and, indeed, this House, but because that is the very rhetoric that they have been employing when it has been convenient to them in relation to other matters of criminal justice. So I just appeal to you or, rather, I appeal to the House to hold Government members to account when they say, perhaps glibly, that it's sufficient justification to repeal a law that one had campaigned on it; noting that if they'd also campaigned on the aspect of victims' safety and victims' rights and a victim-centred justice system then they should honour that commitment as well, no less than the other. 