Just briefly, this is more to the discussion around the amendment and whether it's voluntary or mandatory.
I understand the department's rationale on this, because by extension there could be precedent. You could apply the same logic to an engineer who decides to go to South America to do work for a resources company, whose family is at home, and who signs a contract for over a year and then comes back. He or she would face the very same set of circumstances.
They volunteered to go down there. Not to make light of it, but that's a fact. The same could be said for an engineer who signs a contract to volunteer to go over and work in China for a year. It would be the very same application.
The amendment, while potentially in good spirit, misses the mark, because it would certainly open itself up to a very wide interpretation and perhaps a lot more significant cost than what they've investigated.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.