So then just to recap in my last three minutes, this bill would—as we've heard—seek to rebalance the interests of employers and claimants for work-related claims. That would suggest that somehow the balance is off kilter but, from what I've seen and the points that I've just run everyone through, that argument doesn't actually hold up under pressure. If you look at the details of where the balancing is already taking place, then that is not an argument for new legislation. The existing settings already balance claimant and employer interests for work-related claims, and the current settings ensure that employer interests are reflected in a fair way. The very nature of this scheme actually already protects employers from the risk of litigation because it is operating on a no-fault basis, and the employer doesn't need to meet claim costs incurred by the scheme. There is a lot about this bill that really just isn't clear. I think I've outlined several points that perhaps the next speaker may want to touch on in detail to turn that argument around, but it should be noted that for a bill that refers to circumstances where an employee has an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related personal injury, there is not a definition to specify that, either in this particular member's bill or in the primary Act, the Accident Compensation Act.