So they're going to struggle, I think, and they have been struggling tonight—Labour, that is—to explain why they voted down firearm protection orders, particularly in light of the second defensive point coming from the Government. They're very keen to say that they're tough on crime, and as an excellent colleague of mine has opined to me this evening, Labour seems to believe that if they say something, it happens: that their words are efficacious, almost sacramental. They just say something and boom, it happens. "We're going to fix child poverty."—didn't happen. "We're going to solve KiwiBuild."—well, that didn't happen. And around firearms: "We'll just say that the community's safer." Not really the case, is it? You go to any of our electorates—certainly come to mine in Tāmaki at the moment: crime's up, violent crime's up, guns are being discharged left, right, and centre. I will admit Tāmaki is pretty much one of the safest areas in the country, so that's a great starting point, but this is even happening there now. It tells you this is a Government which has lost control, and we know that gang numbers are heading towards 8,000. I can tell you that within the Corrections portfolio, the gangs are in control in many ways, and yet this Government and its members tonight have the audacity to stand here and tell us they're doing a fine job, because they took something like, you know, 60,000 firearms off legal, lawful New Zealanders, without forgetting the obvious point which this bill is trying to address: it's the gangs primarily and other illegal people who have the weapons. But as I say, it's a good bill, somewhat headed in the right direction. There's some good elements to it, but there are two pretty fundamental weaknesses which we would like to see addressed.