If I could just add one final remark, from my perspective the question of why is a good one. It is something we are prepared to look into and are looking into. From our perspective--and even from that of your previous witness last week--there's little dispute about the removal of gravel from that site. That site is generally considered to be a good one to remove gravel.
The issue is, how did you do it? How did that come about? How did you decide to have a causeway there, and did you take into consideration reasonable precautions in putting in a causeway? Were the assumptions you made reasonably valid under the circumstances? Those are the questions you've raised.
We agree that we do need to go back and look at why. That is what the review is designed to do. We are asking ourselves why we put the causeway in. What were the assumptions that we made when we put the causeway in? Were those valid assumptions to make, and if they were not valid and based on good evidence and good information, what can we learn from that for the future?
So we don't disagree with the notion that we have to ask why. We are going to ask why. We're going to have an answer to that, and then we're going to take measures based on that answer.