A number of different points, in no particular order. Often, we hear that the reason that Parliament should repeal the three-strikes law is that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. With respect, that is not the strongest argument on the other side of the debate. There are good reasons to and fro in relation to the three-strikes law, but lack of proportionality under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act isn't one of them. This is because the lack of proportionality in the three-strikes law—which is to say the third strike, so to speak, is treated differently from the second and first strike—is a feature of the system, not a bug. It was quite deliberate that Parliament made that law. Proportionality was an aspect of what the Parliament at that time was trying to achieve. Now, of course, that Parliament, in 2010, can't bind the hands of a future Parliament, which is why Parliament, now, can make a different decision, and clearly it will with the majority support not only of Labour but I think some of the other support parties. So it's well within the right of Parliament, collectively, to change the law, but to do so on the basis that there's a perceived inconsistency with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and that can't be reconciled in favour of the legislative branch of Government—is to misunderstand the respective roles of the branches of Government. 