Ms Swarbrick in an earlier contribution in, I think, the second reading debate made what I thought was a very valid contribution, which was: why do we draw the line where some prisoners are given the vote even though they might have committed the same offence as somebody who commits the same offence but receives a different sentence? Again, that is a position that I have some sympathy with, which is why I was so surprised to hear that the Greens are going to continue to vote for this bill tonight, because it does exactly what Ms Swarbrick railed so eloquently against in the second reading debate. It says that prisoners should be treated differently based on the sentence that they're given. If someone's given, let's say, two years and 11 months in prison, they'll be able to vote. But if someone's given three years and one month for the same offence, they won't be able to vote. So despite that inconsistent position, the Greens are going to vote for this bill anyway. I guess that is where their consistency ends.