Of course, what we had seen, as in a number of instances where the head contractor or a large company fell over, those funds were, unfortunately, no longer available and had been used for some other purpose—working capital, for example. Even with the legislative changes that Mr Smith brought in, there were at that point still, unfortunately, not enough safeguards to prevent some of the issues that we have seen. So this bill takes that to the next level and actually makes it a requirement that that retention money be held in trust for the particular subcontractor via a separate bank account, which is especially named as such, for that subcontractor, or it may be for several contractors depending on the nature of the contracts in place. Or, alternatively, they can have some other compliance assurance such as an insurance policy or a bank guarantee, for example, that would provide confidence that whilst they don't have to have their physical cash sitting in a bank account, they have the ability to meet the obligations required of those retentions when they fall due. So that's all good stuff. 