And so, let me run through those clauses. I'll try and do it briefly. They're not simple areas, but the first is clause 8. It renders presumptively unlawful evidence of any sexual experience by a complainant with the accused. And I just simply say to Kris Faafoi, the law's already strong enough in this area. A defence counsel can't just come along to court and, on a whim, start asking about the prior sexual experience of the complainant. They need to have the judge's approval and sanction to do that, and it has to be relevant—and not just relevant, highly probative—to the guilt or the lack of guilt—I won't say innocence, because that's not the criminal standard, but the non-guilt of the accused. But here, we're limiting the evidence, even where it is relevant and probative to whether the accused should be acquitted. In the New Zealand Bar Association's submission to the select committee, they talk about, in many cases, details of previous consensual sexual activity between a complainant and defendant will be of direct relevance to those allegations before the court. By way of example, a complainant's consent to sexual—