The very first thing to say is that they are now being made public. I've been making those conflict of interest screens public for the last year, so it is not correct to say that they are secret and not public. All of the conflict of interest screens we've established over the last year have been made public.
They were not being made public as a matter of course before that, and there is a historical reason for that, actually, and it might be helpful for you to understand that. In the previous regime, before I became Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, there was a code. In that code, recusal was defined as either a recusal or a conflict of interest screen. There was actually a vehicle that was used before this act was put into force. When this act was enacted, they dropped out the concept of conflict of interest screens. It took me a little while, having come into office, to notice, and one day I asked my staff why there were no recusals in our reports. I found out, to my surprise, that indeed what we're now doing had continued, so I said that we had better start making these conflict of interest screens public. They weren't required to be made public, but I have discretion to make public whatever I think ought to be made public.
The whole confusion has come out of the fact that the legislation, the act, changed the terminology and the approach. A lot of people seem to think recusals are anything, but if you look up the legal definition, recusals are things you do at the last minute. You find out that you shouldn't be doing something. A conflict screen is another approach to the same problem.
Anyway, I'm wandering a little bit, but maybe this will help situate you a little bit as to just what happened here. A recusal and a conflict of interest screen are two ways of accomplishing exactly the same thing. One is used when you foresee there is likely to be a problem that's going to come up in the future. The other one is used when you didn't foresee the problem and you have to recuse.