What the bill also does in the form it is in is it places a whole lot more compliance and cost on shooting clubs and ranges, almost all of which are, simply, run by small volunteer groups. These are not large-scale commercial operations, they're not profitable organisations, and we've heard repeatedly that that risks many of these simply closing up. Were that to transpire—and there is good reason to believe that, in some cases, it will—it actually has the perverse outcome of making New Zealand less safe, because what we will see is firearms owners going down to a mate's place, a farm, down to the river to do things like sighting their rifles and for hunting or other activities, and that's less well-managed. In fact, there's general agreement—has been all along from police officials, I think even from the Minister, certainly from Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that these clubs and rangers represent the best organised, governed, and managed facilities in New Zealand. In the regulatory impact statement, the police noted that there has been no case and no evidence to suggest that any form of extremist or illegal behaviour was growing or fomenting in organised clubs or range environments. They put forward a hypothetical that suggested it could happen, but they admitted there was no evidence that it had. There was no need for this level of compliance burden. We argued that a simple notification of police of an existence of a club and range was sufficient because the police would retain powers of inspection at their wish, so they would be able to provide the enforcement and compliance oversight without burdening the clubs and range managements themselves.