On Afghanistan, I think we, along with the other countries engaged in the development work, are learning an awful lot about what works and what doesn't work. That is going to help inform, as we move forward not only in Afghanistan but perhaps in other similar situations of fragile states, the criteria that we need from the host government.
My concern in post-2011 is what the security environment will be like for development to take place. It's all very good to say we will continue to have a development presence and a diplomatic presence, but the precondition of that being effective is a security situation that allows development to take place. I think we have quite an agenda between now and 2011 to provide that assurance.
The Afghanistan Compact envisaged reports, and those reports are being prepared and what not. I think we need to perhaps strengthen our capacity to look honestly at what is working from a national perspective and from a multi-national perspective and what isn't.
With respect to the institutions, I guess I am one who would argue—and I know it's a cliché, but I believe it's really important—that we need to be more whole-of-government in our international engagement. That requires, by definition, more players than there have been historically on issues of “foreign policy”, because issues that are domestic have become those of foreign policy. But you also have to have leadership that is able to exercise coherence and help achieve that whole-of-government approach. I believe that we have to strengthen our presence abroad. We have to have language capacity in the countries of the future and not just the countries of the past. We have to have the capacity to deal with the issues that will speak to our security and economic well-being for the future and have greater intelligence capacity in terms of failed and fragile states.