I think that might be one way to put it.
Remember, though, that the whole purpose of this is to go after those unscrupulous businesses in the marketplace that are deliberately promoting a fake discount price when, in fact, it is the ordinary price. That's the mystery we're getting at. It's the competition commissioner who came here and said the burden is too hard on this.
I'll summarize.
It's highly unlikely that we're going after any small businesses. If we do, any scrupulous business would be able to keep records and probably easily show that the prices it is charging are legitimate, so it's a legitimate discount. Its documents can all be subpoenaed in any event, so the risk issue you described to me is illusory, because any business would have to be keeping its records one way or the other, whether the burden is on the business or whether their records could be subpoenaed.
Finally, it seems like the one concern that would lie in favour with the position of Mr. Turnbull—and, in fairness, the way you're answering questions—is that we need to be concerned about the business that doesn't keep any records of its prices. That would strike me as a highly unusual situation. I can't see the policy benefit of worrying about the business that doesn't keep prices so that it can't satisfy the Competition Tribunal.
I'll just throw that out.
Does anything I've said alleviate any of your concerns?