I think that's really difficult because, as you say, some people need the help more than others. I think it's important that a plan take that into account. I think that's where, when we talk about having a strategy that looks at whether a woman is in a much higher risk job or has multiple children already, we need that flexibility of saying that every person is not the same and that it's not just a case of you getting 55% of your income if you have a child. Rather, it's about seeing that if someone only made $32,000 a year, 55% of their income would not a reasonable amount to expect them to live on, but that we still want that person to be able to stay home, whereas, with someone who's making $90,000 a year, maybe then we could say, okay, 55% is enough for you. It should be based on that.
What I believe the government and some employers do is that they will top up maternity leave if there's a guarantee that the person will come back to work. If that the person doesn't return, then they don't get that top up. It is a real incentive to go back to the workforce and also to have a livable wage when you're at home. I think that's a really valuable place where employers can step up, also knowing that the training that they've put into someone won't be lost, but that they're retaining that person even at a slight cost to them. I think that's another place where money could come from [inaudible-Editor] with it benefiting employers.