It is successful, because it prevents unnecessary adjudications. It's an operational thing. The aim of legislation is to try to take away problems. It's trying to drive cultural and behavioural change. It's getting people to actually work out the problems as they occur and not save them up.
To your first point on changes, every project goes through changes. It's normal. Owners change their minds or unforeseen conditions come up, and that sort of thing. Contractors have issues. There are changes. Typically what's been happening—and this is sort of an aged problem—is that the changes are usually slow to adapt. Every contract you sign as a general contractor or as a subtrade says you're not supposed to make any change without a signed change order. Nobody does that. It's bad, but that's just the cultural norm, because you want to make the change to keep the project moving. You're looking for timely processing of submissions of the costing for that change, its review and the eventual change order, which amends the contract. Then you pay on that.
If you look at the backlog and why prompt payment is actually here in front of us today, over half of the cases—and 50% is actually a conservative number on that; our statistics say it's more like 60% to 65% of the prompt payment issues—are a direct result of slow processing of changes on a project. Often the owner is actually saving them up until the end of the job, which effectively has the general contractor and its subtrades bankrolling the job on changes for the owner. That's something the industry is fighting against.