I think I've already made our position fairly clear on this. I don't think we need to beat this to death.
Just to be clear, as this amendment, especially proposed subclause (4) suggests, for the sake of argument, if the director of the Sierra Club sends a message on Facebook to the director of Greenpeace that influences the message they post on the next Facebook post, that would count as collusion of information for purposes of influencing the election. I think that's a very dangerous precedent to be setting. I think on that basis this cannot be supported in any way. Thank you for that.