I think it's really healthy for this Parliament to have robust debate and discussion, and it really will provide an opportunity in the committee of the whole House for us to have a debate about synthetic intimate visual recordings, digital intimate visual recordings, and deep fakes, and the current use of and accessibility of artificial intelligence technology and its particular relevance to this bill. I've consulted with Tom Barraclough and Curtis Barnes from Brainbox consulting, who wrote a report with the New Zealand Law Foundation, and it was titled Perception Inception: Preparing for Deep Fakes and the Synthetic Media of Tomorrow. Overwhelmingly, 97 percent of synthetic intimate visual recordings or deep fakes are the non-consensual pornography against women. Is there harm within that context? Absolutely. So I guess the proposition is that intimate visual recordings or synthetic intimate visual recordings actually are the same, whether the abuser is known or not. The law is ambiguous, I think it needs to be clarified.