We have to take the Government at their word that they had advice, because they've said that they'll consider but haven't promised to share the legal advice they received. They had advice that the person might well be a protected person. Well, if that's true, then that is the first part of our law that needs to be changed, because the purpose of section 164(4) is to protect a protected person, as they're called, from being deported to somewhere where they might be tortured or subject to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment. Now, that's a very understandable provision. I can understand why our Parliament would want to ensure that there were protections against people being deported somewhere where they were going to be tortured, or arbitrarily deprived of life, or treated cruelly. That's perfectly understandable. But here's the question: while that law makes sure that the protection of a person, who in this case was a terrorist, is looked after, how does it allow the Government to balance the protection of all the people currently in New Zealand—if we take the Government at its word that it had legal advice that they might be a protected person?