Basically, I don't buy the argument that there isn't some harm that does occur with some women, and some of the submitters turned up to select committee and actually said that. This is not an unusual provision across the world, and, in fact, I've just been reading a lengthy judgment from Australia—a 200-page decision—whereby, as I understand it, most of the jurisdictions and territories in Australia have something like these safe zones. Basically, when you look at that particular case and you look at the balance that is being struck here, there is this recognition that with freedom of speech and freedom of political communication, there are limits to that if there is harm that is being caused by individuals. I accept David's argument that the Law Commission has said that there isn't significant evidence of this, but with all due respect, we are dealing with a different legal framework. 