As I said in relation to the other question, none of that conduct can be prohibited conduct or considered coercive conduct for the purposes of this offence unless it meets the safety test. It has to be considered to be reasonably expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their physical or psychological safety is threatened. However, in addition to that, we have to remember there is a mental element that also needs to be proven, which is either intent to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety would be threatened or being reckless as to whether that would ensue from their conduct.
There are a lot of protections built in to ensure that the list of conduct is truly just illustrative and based on the lived experiences of those who have gone through this or are being subjected to this horrific crime—or soon-to-be crime, perhaps, as it's up to you to decide that. It's very carefully crafted to ensure that only the person who is holding the power in that relationship, not the vulnerable person, would be captured by it through both the intent element and the way this third category of conduct is defined with respect to the legal test. It has, by the way, a lot of appellate jurisprudence interpreting it, so we know what it means, at least in the context of human trafficking, which is an overlapping type of crime.