Now, the reason that is relevant is because the creation of that interregnum was the quid pro quo to a very generous $2 billion-plus settlement where the Crown said, "OK, we'll make pay equity go away if you agree not to pursue your claims in the court." The way that was done was through section 8 of the original Act. I do think it's disingenuous for people in this debate to describe that as some kind of punitive imposition. What the Act said was it settled pay equity, and so, by the way, let's no longer—because I had introduced a piece of legislation at about the same time called the Pay Equity Bill which was then going to take a new approach that clearly Labour and the Greens didn't like; that's fine, that's history. But the idea that that five-year hiatus on claiming in the courts was some kind of punitive imposition, I think, is a mischaracterisation of what had happened. This was an agreement in good faith with good will to make the problem go away, and as part of that agreement which was legislated, parties agreed—not just the law stated, parties agreed—they would not go back to court. But as the quid pro quo in return for that $2 billion settlement needed to be in writing, it also went into law.