In terms of the two questions the member raises: is it increasing the cost of living cap, and is it right that, effectively, we're still relying on a group of workers from overseas who, in order to take up this work, end up getting an exemption from rules that would otherwise apply to those obtaining a work visa. Look, I agree with the sentiment that I think underpins what the member is asking. The whole purpose of this for this group of workers is to get on with the most important thing, which is getting them pay equity—getting them paid at rates that are not based on sex-based discrimination, which is pretty clearly what is happening in this particular industry. There is a framework for doing that, it's the Equal Pay Act, as amended. There is a process for doing it. For this group of workers, it was not possible for anybody to commence on that process until after 30 June, but it's important in the meantime we afford appropriate protections, particularly of existing pay rates. And those protections are particularly important for unrepresented workers, which is the large chunk of these workers. So I'm satisfied that as an interim step this is a good step to take, but I remain committed and, in fact, most of my effort has gone into making sure that we set up all sides of the pay equity claim to proceed with that with alacrity and get pay equity for these workers just as quickly as possible.