I am reminded of the famous dictum in criminal law matters on issues such as this. There is an evergreen truth in matters of the law that 'each case turns on its own circumstances'. What 'reasonable steps' might be would very much depend on the individual circumstances of the matter. The reasonable steps provision is triggered once it is confirmed that the franchisor knew that something was occurring or ought reasonably to have known. As the member for Melbourne would know, that is reasonable steps. The two triggering events—that they either knew or ought reasonably to have known that things were occurring—are very well versed and used legal phrases, but their meaning, of course, would depend on the relevant circumstances of the case.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.