We heard that there is a view amongst directors—a misapprehension, we were told—that too many of them believe or perceive that their personal risks, particularly around offences related to reckless trading—they believe that those provisions are all too similar to those that exist in Australia. We were told that that isn't, in fact, the case, but the fact that the perception persists was one of the principal reasons for instituting a safe harbour for this period of time so that directors who might otherwise be too keen or too pressed into potential liquidation of a company that might otherwise actually be able to trade out of the current challenges might feel themselves pressured into taking a less than optimal route. So the safe harbour provision gives them some confidence that they won't expose themselves to the sorts of personal liability that they perceive that they could be placed under, even though some advice we received says that that level of risk isn't there in practice—in New Zealand, at least.