The other one is from Marama Davidson, which says that there should be amendments to the extent that the safe areas still exist but they're initiated by the provider, the clinic in question, rather than the Director-General of Health, and that the test is more objective and that it's any discussion of abortion services, and that it becomes an infringement notice regime. Now, as somebody who is always concerned about protecting freedom of expression, I think there's a lot of merit in that particular amendment. However, there are also some major flaws in it. For one, an infringement notice regime, while technically defensible for those accused, in practice means that you can be suppressed simply on the basis of an officer or a constable deciding that they don't like what you're doing. You do not have the kind of defences when a prosecution must be brought. 