I do just want to respond to some comments made by the ACT Party today, because there were some questions around this in the committee of the whole House, as well, and I just wanted to make a few comments around the use of the term "objectionable", because that was something that submitters did raise some concern around. But I think it's actually important that the context of that definition is put in place so that we can understand it some more. The meaning of "objectionable" states that, "A publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is like to be injurious to the public good." When talking specifically about the sex component, the definition goes on to state that, "The publication is or contains one or more visual images of one or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude."