I want to also commend Ginny Andersen, our chair, but also our select committee as a whole. I do believe that we collectively listened in a really respectful way, and where the majority landed—in terms of recommendations from the subcommittee—has provided a greater sense of clarity in terms of the scope of the bill, which my colleagues have spoken to. The purpose clause now explicitly acknowledges that conversion practices are inherently harmful. We also proposed amendments to the meaning of "conversion therapy" to include treatment or sustained effort, which ensured there was coverage of both one-off and cumulative acts. The committee also proposed amending clause 5 to include examples of what constitutes a conversion practice, incorporating the examples of the legislation in Queensland and Victoria. We also amended clause 5(2)(f), which a number of speakers have referred to, to clarify that not only is expressing a religious principle or belief not within the sphere of what is conversion therapy, but neither is expressing a personal belief that's not religious, which was an issue raised on the opposite side of the House that is now covered in the bill. I just also wanted to point out that while those were changes that were made to the bill in select committee stage, actually, clause 5(2) of the bill is all about clarifying what is not conversion therapy. These are not exceptions; this is all about clarifying what is not conversion therapy.