We've heard my very good colleague Mark Mitchell talk about the evidence, which is very clear, around what this legislation will do—and the false hope that it will give to young people around what is in the substances that are being checked. The only one piece of evidence—the only one piece of evidence—which the Government members have been able to point to, to try and argue the fact that this will make things safer for young people using drugs, is a self-selected study put out by the University of Victoria, where they asked people to fill out a survey. They literally went and put a survey on Facebook and said, "If you've used substances recently, we'd love you to fill out this survey." And then the University of Victoria has put out a self-selected survey, which has come up with some so-called evidence, which they're basing all of the arguments on, all of the arguments about how this is going to make things safer for young people. But, when you actually dig into the detail of that survey, firstly, you can disregard it for the fact that it's not scientific; it's, basically, junk science with a self-selected bias. But, if you dig into it and you look at the questions which were asked around whether or not people would continue to use the drugs even if they were found to have substances in it that they didn't expect, about 80 to 90 percent of people said they'd still use them—80 to 90 percent of people would still use those substances even if they went through the drug-checking service and were told, "Look, yep, your MDMA has also been mixed with some rat poison. And here it is. We'll hand it back."—80 to 90 percent. So, if you think you're actually solving a problem here, all you're doing is you're giving false hope to young people.