Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I won't prolong overly this particular point, except to say that the court case itself, I think the Minister described as a pay equity claim; actually, it was a claim for a declaration that section 9 of the Equal Pay Act 1972 applied not only to pay between men and women but to—I can't remember the exact words—equal pay for work of equal value, or something to that effect. It was that the court may state the principles for implementation of equal pay, and therefore not having appealed that, once that court case had ended, a whole new pay equity process had to start, which was the court then would have determined, on the basis of criteria that were not laid out, that were never intended, too, I don't think—in fact, that was an acknowledgment by the courts—that the 1972 Act never intended that the legislation as it was written would be applied in that way but nevertheless it should be. That's fine; I get that. That left a huge gap in the framework for being able to determine how to establish work of equal value and then to make sure that pay was equal as well. So I make that point simply to say that the pay equity journey had really only just begun in the Terranova case despite being before the courts for several years, and the Government cutting it off at the pass was not intended to take away access to justice in this regard; it was intended to fast track it, and that was the point of my earlier call. I will end my contributions on that, because we could go round the traps on it.