Simplification is good, and the reasons for that have been outlined, as is, of course, the limitation on those retrospective reassessments, which can expose substantive liability, particularly for those who may be obliged to pay in lower socio-economic circumstances—especially when you take into account the requirement to pay potential interest. But I do, however, make note of the contribution made by Andrew Bayly, that on the other end of town, whilst it's really important that we have made those amendments to how income is accounted for, particularly with regard to interest and dividends being included, the ability to wiggle out of this by having that income come through by other means, such as shareholder advances, does still propose a number of fish-hooks to which I hope we begin to pick up and deal with as we move forward in further simplifying and making more equitable this piece of law.