The first point I'd like to make as to why we don't need this legislation any more is that some of that really important advice we got from officials and through organisations was on the theory of deterrence, and this is really the heart of what we're debating today: whether the idea of deterrence works. It's a theory that punishment can effectively shape human behaviour, and the threat of punishment will somehow outweigh any potential gains that crime might glean. This assumes that all human behaviour is the product of conscious and rational decision-making, and what it fails to do—for those who are streetwise and tell us about what happens in day to day—is it fails to reflect the actual nature of serious offending in New Zealand. In the seconds before someone commits a crime in our country, they do not scan the most recent amendments to the Crimes Act. They do not weigh up whether the impending sentence is in fact worth it or not. It is done on impulse, it is done in an instant, and it is more often than not done under the influence of drugs or alcohol.