Of course, in the current situation, the volume of information you can access when looking to buy an apartment is actually very low. And of course we saw some changes to the real estate Act a number of years ago, now requiring disclosure to be made of any known problems, and also that is an expectation placed on vendors; they must disclose any information they have. But, of course, if they're unaware—which can, as we've heard tonight, be the case with apartment properties—then you can end up with someone buying a home that they have maxed themselves out to do as a first-home buyer and then suddenly being confronted with an unaffordable maintenance bill to upgrade any particular aspect that has arisen as the result of some long-term maintenance plan that hasn't been funded fully. Because, interestingly, and I was amazed to see this in the Unit Titles Act, currently there's a requirement to have a 10-year plan—that will be extended to 30 as proposed under this bill—but there's also a requirement, section 117, that there must be a long-term maintenance fund unless the bodies corporate, by special resolution, decide not to have a long-term maintenance fund. Right, so that seems a little bizarre that actually there's no requirement to have a fund for these long-term maintenance issues. So that's something I would expect we'll hear from submitters on during this process as well.