The reality is: this legislation gave effect to an agreement. Now, when the Government committed to intervening to settle the case, the case itself was not dispensed with by the courts; it was paused. At any time, either party, but probably the—well I'm not sure who was appealing who by then, but basically Bartlett et al could have recommenced the claim in the courts, which, by the way, was not a pay equity claim; it was a ruling that pay equity was part of the Equal Pay Act 1972. It wasn't a substantive bargaining for more money; it was a very technical question of law.