Just to put on record a couple of the aspects that our members have found very persuasive; one is around consent. Some notes associated with the bill talk about the consent needing to be given voluntarily. In a way, that's a tautology. Of course, consent has to be voluntary or it's not real consent at all. But I think there is certainly some merit to what the select committee had concluded about the desirability of having a notion of consent that was already existing in the law, in the common law. But, having said that, I think that the member makes a good case about the threshold of express consent, given the particular nature of the circumstances in which such recordings might be made in the first place. So I won't get into any further detail on that, but suffice to say, obviously, it's the case that if a person doesn't consent, doesn't agree with the sharing of a recording that is intimate in nature, then that is, of course, going to cause harm to them in a way that the law should recognise but not tolerate.