6. The Committee processed the Bill this year in a somewhat changed context from that of the Committee in 2002. Of course, public anxieties and frustrations about the levels of crime and the perception that the State is failing to curb crime have heightened. These are very understandable feelings and views, and the Committee is entirely empathetic. But the Committee cannot shape legislation on a new sustainable model of child justice with both immediate and long term goals solely on the basis of the emotions of the public, as legitimate as these are and as accountable as Parliament is to the public. The Committee is careful to avoid being populist and "short-termist" in our approach and it is precisely because of public concerns about crime and the need to ensure the safety and security of the public that the Committee effected changes to the Bill. Interestingly, while recognizing the limitations of Cape Town- based Parliamentary hearings and the questions about the "representativity" of those who participate, every submission we received at the public hearings, it must be noted, is broadly consistent with, and, of course, influenced, the approach of the Committee and the changes we ultimately effected to the Bill. The changes we made are influenced by other developments since 2002, including: