Well, this is a guy who had prohibited material, a guy who had had weapons, a guy who was saying that he wanted to kill people. He'd been convicted. He'd served several years on remand and been sentenced to seven months in jail. He'd committed a serious crime. My question is, why didn't the Minister declare under section 163 that he was a threat to New Zealanders, and then look at the rules—all of them, as I've just presented; the Minister only presented half of them—and say, "This guy should go."? The only reason the Government can put up is they think he might have been a protected person. They had that legal advice, but they were also advised that he wouldn't be a refugee. In fact, they stripped it off them. So the Government's position on whether he was a threat does not add up. 