We're looking forward to participating in the debate, ascertaining what the new definition of a terrorist act would, could, or should be. Bandied around are descriptions of fear or intimidation. We believe that would set a much lower standard and unjustly capture unintended persons. We will argue that the standards need to be kept high, and we believe that the current descriptor of terror does that. There are powers proposed in this bill to cancel passports and travel documents. Our view is that this may not enable intervention in some cases—for example, where a person holds a dual or foreign passport. We must also consider that if we prevent travel of a suspected terrorist, are we going to be creating a domestic security issue? Nevertheless, the offence would enable police to prosecute individuals and manage their risk according to the outcome of that prosecution, and we're interested in the views of the community here.