The intent of this bill is incredibly important—and I want to spell that out—because the legislative objectives of this bill will assist in how that is interpreted over time. The number one intent is to prevent harm. The second legislative objective of the bill is to encourage safe, respectful conversations around sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. I think that is really important, because one of the main arguments that we heard from some members of the Opposition in the first reading and also from some submitters through the select committee process was that the role of parents was compromised in some way, that there was a concern or a fear that conversations between a parent and their child would somehow be criminalised. And so, for that purpose, I think it's incredibly important for me to read out the section that provides the specific advice in and around that point that is being raised in concern: "We consider that a clear expression of contrary opinion or a failure to act by parents or family members would not meet the requirements for the definition in this bill as they cannot be directed towards or performed on a person." As such, the definition would not capture, for example, a parent not supporting their child to seek support for gender dysphoria, withholding consent for the administration of puberty blockers, or advising a wait-and-see approach to gender-affirming care.