So the principal legislation seeks to solve that problem by creating a retentions regime, and that's all fine and dandy, but the court case of Bennett v Ebert Construction Ltd (In rec & liq) highlighted that there were some definitional issues and this piece of legislation seeks to remedy that. So on this side of the House we support that. But in terms of this legislation, it goes a little further than just being related to mere dollars and cents. What typically happens when a company goes into receivership—particularly a large construction company—is that the site is immediately locked down by the receivers who are acting on behalf of the creditors. What has happened in the past, and probably still happens today, given the issues that we're talking about, is that it's not only the money but it's the equipment, the gear, the tools of trade—the stock in trade of the subcontractor gets locked up and is physically unavailable to that contractor. So that means that not only do they not get paid but they lose their ability to actually continue on in business. If their tools of trade are all locked up on a site that they can no longer have access to, and if their equipment and gear, and sometimes, in some cases, the actual products that they might be installing—think of an air conditioning subcontractor or an electrical or plumbing contractor—the bits and pieces, the bits and bobs that go with the job and the work that they do, if they're not physically able to access that, then they're not able to go on to their next job. Of course, that then has a fateful and sometimes potentially devastating impact on those smaller subcontractors. 