Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond on that.
We believe that although there was peer review and a formal Gazette comment period, there were several deficiencies in public participation in the assessment process. We've testified to those before. We would say that the primary one is that in the peer review, for example, the reviewers were not even listened to by the departmental staff. We made the point that during the gazetting process, one of the peer reviewers—an expert and consultant and author of some of the background documents—actually had to write in protest that the departmental staff had misrepresented his views in the report they filed.