The main point that I want to make from listening to all of the contributions tonight, which I think that many are missing because they are just wanting to talk to the politics of it all, is that I have failed to be convinced that there is actually a need for what this bill is proposing. It is really clear that the bill proposes unnecessary changes, because the police can already use legislation that we have, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to seize assets based off the crime of firearm trafficking, which has been the subject of many of the contributions tonight. Illegal firearm trafficking is an offence under section 55E of the Arms Act 1983 and is punishable by up to 10 years. Under the Arms Act, it is also unlawful to possess illegal firearms, or without the necessary authorisation. So this means that police can already seize unlawful firearms, even if the crimes committed—wait for it—are below the thresholds in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which is what this bill proposes to do by expanding the definition of "significant criminal activity". I haven't heard, in any of the contributions tonight, anything to convince me that this bill is required to be able to do all of the things that everybody has mentioned.