One should always look at what a bill is attempting to fix. As a result of the Bennett & Ors v Ebert Construction, many of the contractors who thought they did have the protection found that the wording of the Act did not deem retentions to be held on trust. Instead, it required the parties to hold retentions on trust, which meant that where there was a belief that they were secure in a trust, they actually weren't, and if a payer did not comply with the requirements to hold retentions on trust, the retention money would be co-mingled with payer money or, in fact—worse—had been used as capital. Of course, using retention money as capital or as cash flow—even worse—meant that, once again, as soon as these companies do go into liquidation or collapse in any other way, then it means that those companies, like the ones I aforementioned, are going to be the ones who are going to miss out, and often that chain effect will be that they will go into liquidation and the subcontractors to them will also be left in the same place. So, essentially, what this bill seeks to remedy is having the money all being swept into a pool with all other cash and all other obligations, leaving those who were unsecured at the bottom to, essentially, go the same way. 