Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to actually fire a couple of questions if I may to the member in the chair Chris Bishop particularly when it comes to clause 8. One of the things I am always concerned about when we have legislation is that there is always clarity for people when they are reading through the legislation. Even though I have been privy to the legislation right through its course through the Parliament so far when I first picked up this amendment bill—because obviously it is a little bit truncated in the way that it does not always spell out what was in the parent bill in the first place. We are talking here in terms of what it is that the inspector may seize. Subclause (2) says: In section 107(3)(b) replace 'poster is being publicly displayed in contravention of section 130 or section 133' with 'public display of the poster constitutes an offence under section 130 133 or 133A'." Now the thing with posters is that for most people if they are looking at that they may be somewhat confused as to whether or not the poster itself is the publication that is under review or perhaps is subject to censorship or whether in fact the poster is actually simply advertising the publication itself.So it would be useful for me I think and hopefully for the House too if the member in charge of the bill was able to briefly just enlighten us with some clarity around that whether or not we are actually looking at a poster as advertising the publication or whether in fact the poster itself is the publication. I think what is really important is that if an interim restriction has been put in place say at an R18 if the initial classification was R13 and there are still posters out there advertising it as R13 then clearly it needs to be put straight. So I think for my mind that is something that I would certainly like to see clarified because as I say when people pick up legislation it is important that they can understand it quickly and easily. Hopefully I have not landed him too much in it and he is able to enlighten us on that if he is able to take another call.That said under clause 9—and I touched on this briefly when we were talking about Part 1 but I do also want to talk about the fact that there do need to be consequences in place for this type of breach. When we have a piece of legislation like this that has been put in place to ensure public safety so that people can be free from being exposed to—if you will forgive the pun—certain material that they do not want to be exposed to there are actually some responsibilities for the individuals and/or bodies corporate who have been putting this stuff out there.Clearly by actually causing an infringement through Part 1 of the Act there needs to be obviously clarity around what the range of fine is. And I think what I did say in Part 1 which I just want to clarify further because I talked about those fines being those specific amounts—that it would be $3000 for an individual or $10000 for a body corporate. Of course what I should have said because in fact that is how it is written within the legislation is that it is liable for a conviction to a fine not exceeding that. So of course like in any legislation or any laws that we have in this country these are maximum fines not necessarily the specific fine—in much the same way I guess with traffic offences those are spelt out specifically but this one obviously is an up-to amount.I just wanted to get some clarification around those things. Again Part 2 obviously is the consequential amendments to the principal Act and I think obviously that is just what we are dealing with. When you make some changes there are going to be consequential amendments to the principal Act and Part 2 covers those off very well."