So acknowledging that the debate at times, I suppose, had the tendency to be divisive, I think it's worth acknowledging, again, as my colleague and friend Nicola Grigg did, some of the tensions around the free speech aspects. She's framed that, I think, really well, so I won't go there again. But I think at its best, debate—whether that's in Parliament itself or the House itself, or select committee—is where one allows others to speak, in the first instance; second, seeks to understand their point of view; and, third, does not make an effort to misrepresent that other view, and acknowledges the strengths of the other view and addresses those, even if it's ultimately a matter of saying that one may disagree ultimately with the conclusion because there's another factor that's able to outweigh that. 