The definition of "publication" under the 1993 Act, which she says it doesn't cover and lists everything, in section 2(a) says "film, book, sound recording, blah, blah, blah …". It's got (b), it's got (c), it gets to (d) and I quote, "(d) a thing (including, but not limited to, a disc, or an electronic or computer file) on which is recorded or stored information that, by the use of a computer or other electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or shown as 1 or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images, representations, signs, statements, blah, etc., etc." So it does actually cover off—and, simply put, a live streaming is, in fact, a "thing" according to the definition. It emanates out of an electronic file. It is being stored temporarily or otherwise on computers and other electronic devices, and it captures images, signs, statements and words. What it really means is that this reason why this bill is introduced and the reasoning that the Minister has put forward for the House to consider—literally the argument falls flat on her face. This is censorship legislation. It's a farce at its worst. It's actually censorship legislation at its worst. And she should have asked her officials to provide her with decent advice. Obviously, the former Minister didn't ask the same question either.