Speaking to Part 2, particularly, of the bill, colleagues have raised a couple of technical difficulties in relation to proposed clause 11 of Schedule 1, in clause 5(7). The member from the ACT Party Nicole McKee raised what I think is actually a really good point in relation to the apparent effect of clause 11, which is to say that, in relation to the particular appellant in the case D v New Zealand Police, the law is not to apply to that person. It seems to me an open question, whether or not intended by this Parliament, whether the particular person who is the particular appellant in that case may be exempted from the effect of this law going forward—so not even addressing the question of retrospectivity in terms of the offending that he or she—and I understand he—has apparently undertaken, but, actually going forward as well. 