I want to try to recollect the extraordinary conversation that was had between members of the committee and officials that Brett Hudson, in his speech, partly referred to. It went something like this. It's a requirement that the problem we're solving—by introducing this safe harbour provision, what we're trying to do here is inform directors that they don't have strict liabilities for trading while insolvent, as is the case in Australia. The simple question that we asked is "Is it the case that this committee has been asked to change the law to what the law is?" "Yes" was the answer. And then we said, "Well, if the problem is that directors don't understand what the current law is, then isn't the answer to tell directors what the law is, and won't it make it more difficult if we change the law and then, presumably, these directors who don't understand the law will have to have a new law explained to them?"