What's been interesting with this is that there's been a hypothetical test rather than an actual test, and the question becomes whether the defendant has engaged in a particular activity in a hypothetical market—which is a really difficult question. The problem is that it fails to capture categories of conduct which deserve condemnation. An example might be where an importer of a particular product prevents other importers of that product from, say, having access to the ports. So one can see the disadvantage they'd be placed at, and yet the way that section 36 stands, it currently would not capture that anti-competitive behaviour. So what this amendment does is it introduces the effects test, and it makes it an exercise about looking at actual intention and an actual market—which, to my mind, is a much more sensible way to proceed when looking at competition law.