We have also expressed concern over the Green Party's lack of support for this piece of legislation. I will reiterate my comments from the second reading here at the third reading that this is not a debate on whether there should be a child sex offender registry or not. That particular debate was held back in 2016. That was the time to raise concerns over whether that was the most effective tool or the right tool. Parliament should be legislating to try and reduce risk of this type of offending and to keep the public safe. What we are dealing with here is simply the retrospectivity of that legislation and whether Parliament's intended retrospective nature has been given effect to. The Supreme Court has come and said that, no, we were not express enough in the retrospectivity in the way it was drafted—that's what the Supreme Court has stated. What we are doing here today is saying that, actually, we want to clarify that retrospectivity so that the 600 offenders and more who would be struck off the registry are put back on the registry. That is about the public safety, and I think it's outrageous—whilst I can understand a principled argument when setting up the registry, with the registry now in place, it is our public duty as parliamentarians to ensure the public safety of New Zealanders, and I would hope that the Green Party would reconsider their lack of support for this important piece of legislation and the one quarter of the individuals in the registry who would otherwise be struck off if this legislation was not supported. 