Turning to "unconscionable", which has had so much attention tonight, it is really important that we don't define it. The Opposition know full well that defining a term in a piece of legislation means that it has a limiting effect to the things that fall fairly and squarely within the categories that are listed. This is about applying a threshold. It is about defining features, which can include relative bargaining powers, the requirement to comply when it is not necessary to protect the benefiting party, undue influence or pressure, and the extent to which parties acted in good faith. And that last element is really important. As has been traversed by our side, there is plenty of case law, both in Australia—case law that will evolve to further give us understanding of "unconscionable". That term, as Duncan Webb has pointed out, has been around since the 1600s. It is a well-known legal term and it will continue to evolve. What we don't want to do is limit it to a finite list or definition.