You see, the only study, I think, was at the backend of the National Government, done by the Ministry of Justice. It shows quite clearly, yep, there was no change in offending levels from people before the bill through to first strikes, once the law was in place; there wasn't a change in the level of offending. But when it came to second strikes at the time of the commission of this report—there weren't any third strike offenders, I don't think, at that time—actually, the strike offenders and their offences decreased—they decreased. And that's because—it's not rocket science—the more individuals are warned, the more they said to themselves, I would think, "This isn't smart. I don't want to keep offending.", and they as individuals were deterred, resulting in their cases in fewer victims of crime. The bill, on the only report commissioned by any Government, the Ministry of Justice, deterred criminals. And more fundamentally than that, what we also know is that—and wait for it—there is an average of 74 previous convictions per strike offender. I just want the members of the public back home to hear that: 74 convictions is what the average three-strikes offender has, right? We're not talking tiddlywinks here. We're not talking theft of a Mars bar, as some on the other side may have you say. With that going on, when they're in prison for a strike, second or third, the public is safer for longer, there are fewer victims in our communities throughout New Zealand. That legislation serves as both general and specific deterrence of criminals.