There was no consultation with the sector on the bill. Yes, around parity; not around this bill. And I'm not surprised, even with the short time frame, we had many in opposition. For a relatively simple and non-controversial bill, I actually was surprised at the number of people who submitted. The way in which the bill was originally worded has some clues in it as to why the sector were so concerned and upset, because new section 548(5A), in clause 4, said "… conditions or purposes—(a) specified under subsection 5(a) or (b)" may relate to matters that include employment conditions "(for example, remuneration)." So you can see that the first thing that jumped out to the owners of these early childhood centres, or in fact the Early Childhood Council was: what employment conditions? Because remuneration was just a secondary thing in brackets. Rightly so, the submitters said, "Well, what else is the Minister planning? What other conditions and terms is the Minister planning to impose upon us? And at what cost to us? And will we have a grant to cover those?"