Now, I would like to address some of the comments from previous members' speeches to this bill, but in doing so, I would like to apologise—and I'll explain later—for the analogy that I'm about to use. What I would like to make abundantly clear to the House is that prior consent to sexual activity does not ever, ever mean that you have present consent or future consent. For example, if one of my colleagues lends me their vacuum cleaner—so thanks for that—I cannot assume that just because they lent it to me last week—and this is where the apology comes in—they have automatically given me the right to borrow it today without their permission. If they are asleep when I want to use their vacuum cleaner, I am not able to take it without their permission, because they're unable to give it. If they are intoxicated, drunk, or under the influence of drugs, I am not able to take that vacuum cleaner without their permission. How much worse is it, therefore—and I apologise for using the analogy of an inanimate object when we're talking about the most intimate acts between two people or more without consent. We're very clear that we need to have consent. Previous history does not determine or dictate future consent either; it's completely irrelevant. I may have lent many people my vacuum cleaner in the past; it is not relevant to whether or not I am giving consent to somebody borrowing it today.