I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as dialogue is helpful.

It is not the case that, without the Minister's amendment, the court would not have to exercise discretion with regard to the matter. The entire clause sets out a series of discretionary provisions that are designed to strike a balance when receivership is made. It is inherent in subsection (6), as it is currently worded, that it is open to the court to hold that an exclusion should be made in respect of associated property, if that is required to fulfil the necessary criteria under subsections (2) and (3) in favour of a person who holds associated property, even if, as a result of that, a considerable level of prejudice is caused to the ability of the enforcement authority to

recover the recoverable amount within that associated property. That is a fair principle, and the Minister is going to get rid of it.