So I think the larger question here is not simply that we absolutely should protect disabled people from having essential items for them participating in society seized, but a slightly wider question about how we approach debt recovery. As has been noted a number of times, this piece of legislation does not apply to a bank or second tier lender or loan shark that lends money on a motor vehicle. And so if any financial institution were to lend money on a motor vehicle that is specially altered for a person with a disability to drive, that is absolutely subject to repossession the moment a repayment is missed, and that's something we need to think about.