From my reading of the report from the Justice Committee, essentially what they have done is broaden the definition of a "judgment debtor". The original proposition from Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki was that this was about a disabled person and solely about the disabled person. In fact, the scope that the select committee have chosen to increase also now includes the carer of a disabled person. The reason the committee did that, in fact, was because it's about how the property of a disabled person, or the family of a disabled person, or the person caring for that disabled person is used, because sometimes it isn't actually the disabled person themselves that owns the property. So we then started to focus on the use of that property, and the instance that actually brought this kaupapa to this Parliament was a vehicle that a disabled person had that was then—through a judgment debtor, being determined to be a judgment debtor—taken from that particular individual. So I want to commend the select committee on their work because, in fact, it would have been neglectful if you hadn't highlighted that sometimes it wasn't the disabled person themselves who owned the property but members of their family, or those providing care to them. So I think you've closed what could have been a loophole that, in fact, would have negated the whole intention of this piece of legislation. So congratulations for highlighting that. 