The other one is in relation to the fact that it's not possible to consent to things that might be considered within the definition of practices. Clause 10 of the bill is very clear in that regard. It says that the offences specified in clauses 8 and 9 do not enjoy a defence, even if the individual who was receiving those practices consented to them. Obviously, the concept of consent is pretty complex under the law, and I do acknowledge that consent that is seemingly given but is subject to coercion or undue influence is not real consent in itself. So, again, we do acknowledge the complexity of this. Not only is it a theoretical matter in a matter of law but, of course, on the ground in a person's home, for example, and in many other contexts, for that matter. 