So I would also go back to looking, to try and understand the thinking of the member Mr Doocey, how he came to this. The point was that there was a particular instance, I understand—and I may be enlightened at the end of this debate—where a police dog was injured, and that took action to bring this member's bill to the House. But the problem I have is that the bill that's been put forward by the member leaves the penalty for injuring a police dog unchanged, meaning that it would have no impact, for example, on the person who injured but did not kill the dog. But for the police dog in the case that inspired Mr Doocey, that was exactly what happened. So it is fundamentally unclear that the higher sentence in this bill would provide any significant deterrent against dogs being killed or even, in fact, injured in the line of duty. 