But, in that essence, we are opposing this bill, and that's no disrespect to those members. It's really saying, "Hold on a minute.", in terms of increasing the maximum sentence for the killing of a police dog from two to five years' imprisonment. That underpins that decision. It underpins it because it's saying that, actually, I know—and I said this in my last speech—that the policemen and women of Aotearoa New Zealand go to work not thinking that there will ever be a case where they go there thinking, "Hopefully, there'll be a sentence of five years versus two." That's not what they think. They're there to do a job and to do a job well. That includes just catching the offender or contributing to the process of catching an offender, and the dog is the mechanism in that sense. So there's no disrespect there. The issue here is just purely, I believe, around the deterrent being the extension of the time frame from two years to five years. That's, for me, the heart of the opposition to such a bill—saying "Does that underpin the need for this amendment bill to go forward?" 