Ultimately, this bill reminds us that a right to a health service means nothing without the ability to access it safely, and I do want to address briefly the apparent rights arguments that I've heard sitting in some of the objection to this bill, with the first argument, of course, being that freedom of speech should not be interfered with. I spoke several weeks ago to the Conversion Therapy Prohibition Bill, providing some examples of how freedom of speech is frequently limited in places like consumer law, employment law, electoral regulation, copyright, and, actually, many other areas as well. I noted especially that rights aren't things to be verbally wielded around one's head, and I often cringe when giants of thought like Voltaire and Mill are selectively quoted without acknowledging the broader context of their theories, which often include recognising the limits that harm can and should place on freedoms. 