Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, and I thank the member. These are, in my view, good questions that get to the nub of the important issues in this bill, quite frankly. And the conversations I have had with officials have gone backwards and forwards on this. In the end, the advice shaped by officials that has gone into the Supplementary Order Paper does rest on a belief that, actually, the unconscionable conduct, by not defining it too specifically, is actually, on balance, the best approach. The Australian courts have found a way of interpreting that, looking, as the member says, to the conscience and norms of society for guidance instead of defining too narrowly and risking a piece of legislation that's stuck in time and no longer fit for purpose in a few years' time if things change. It's been preferred to go with a slightly more flexible approach that sets out issues, factors a court can consider when determining whether the conduct is unconscionable, and that includes the following: the relative bargaining power of the parties; whether unfair pressure or tactics were used; and the extent to which the parties acted in good faith. Now, the bill is meant to address serious misconduct that goes beyond what is commercially necessary or appropriate, and by not defining unconscionable conduct, it means that the risk of a narrow definition unduly limiting the circumstances in which the protections could be used is eliminated.