What I was referring to in the discussion was the number of staff affected. We were in the position whereby we sent letters to, I believe, 776 employees department-wide who were affected. All employees were advised that this did not mean they were surplus. It was clear that 776 employees would not be declared surplus. At the beginning, our estimate was that fewer than half that number of employees would be declared surplus, and the concern we had was about reports in the media that 776 people would be laid off when all the people had been informed that it would not be all of them.
I understand it's a very concerning for anybody to be in this situation. Nobody enjoys going through the process, but it really was with respect to the numbers about those affected and surplus.