The Attorney-General has quite rightly said that he has a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that says that this isn't consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, albeit it's a bit of a flip-flop, because when the previous bill came in, the Attorney-General's advice was that it didn't. Now, I'm particularly concerned about the term "objectively" in clauses 9.1 and 9.2 of his vet. It's almost an oxymoron—objectively causing distress—and who is to say what causes distress? What causes me distress may not cause someone else distress, and so by its very nature that's going to be subjective. 