There are some questions that need clarifying in the bill, which I'm sure will be dealt with at select committee. Why we're not using similar wording used in section 131B of the Crimes Act 1961, which outlines more clearly the acts which are actually criminal. We'd like it to be more specific as to the ingredients required for the crime. Intent is the main ingredient and it must be specific when new section 126A has a 10-year jail term for intent to mislead. As Duncan Webb said earlier on, that should be a huge deterrent for any potential unintended consequences, which need to be examined with a real high degree of scrutiny. We support the increase in penalty and note that this offence could fit into the three strikes regime, another deterrent for repetitive abuse. The current definition of a serious, violent offence in the Crimes Act would fit inside this bill. I am interested in where 17-year-olds fit into this legislation, and I'm sure this will be fully explained throughout the select committee process as well.