Okay. Thank you very kindly.
Dealing once again with not real but talk-around points, I'll call them, on this with respect to benefits versus the actual cost of implementation, I have not actually seen, or we have not been exposed to, with our witnesses yet the actual real cost to a government of going to accrual. Is it going to take one year? Is it going to take seven years?
We've had some indication of that, but I'd like to see some dollar figures attached to this at some particular point. Is the cost going to be $250 million? There were figures bandied about, and yet there didn't appear to be anything near unanimity on this because there didn't seem to be a complete answer as to what extent we should go.
What I'm trying to suggest here is, shouldn't we have a clear focus before we are going to be able to actually cost it effectively? Right now, estimates are coming through based on many possibilities. I would much prefer to have a clear focus.
As an example, the research people here have come up with a great many obstacles, just with the treatment of tax revenue alone being a problem, whether it's underground market, whether that's factored in there, or whether it's the timing and the amount of taxation. Shouldn't we have a clear sense of direction on all of the obstacles and what we plan on doing with it, and then arrive at a cost factor? Would that be a reasonable way to approach this?
I don't know if I've confused the issue with you or not.