I wouldn't want to give explanations for why not, but it is a long-standing approach to parliamentary authority and control of spending that it is voted on year by year. Even though the government's books overall are on accrual now, or even if they were on cash, there's a multi-year reality in a cash world and in an accrual world. We're certainly not saying we wouldn't want to go there. In fact, it is one of the things that departmental managers identify to us often as being a problem for them because of the reality. You can't spend the $25 million only in this example; the $75 million is coming. Why wouldn't you just have the multi-year appropriations and not have to come back? Well, Parliament might want to see it. We would have to present that $75 million for information, then, in a second year, so there'd be a further degree of complication.
I think traditionally, in many governments, both the government and the Parliament might have been concerned about uncertainty in the fiscal situation and the government's wherewithal to actually pre-commit very large amounts of money. So there's a materiality aspect to it. We have very sound finances, happily, now. So perhaps there was a reluctance in the past that was not necessarily appropriate.
This really does go to the heart of parliamentary control and how much freedom Parliament wants to give to departments and ministers to spend.