As the question pointed out, there are what we describe as “adjustments to reconcile”—to the update, in this case; we update to the latest fiscal framework. Given that these estimates were tabled before the 2007 budget, we're reconciling back to the fiscal update.
Secondly, we have what's called a net adjustment, from “net” to “gross” basis of budget presentation.
You ask if these are normal. The second one is new as of last fiscal year. The Auditor General had for a number of years been recommending that the government move its overall basis of presenting to Parliament its spending and revenues from a net basis to a gross basis. What that means is, for example, that some individual departments will receive revenues directly, and their vote wording allows them to re-spend those revenues—perhaps a parks entry fee, or purchasing a publication from a department.
What we are proposing that Parliament vote, through the estimates, is access to the consolidated revenue fund. That is by nature a net amount of spending, so we need to show Parliament that each of the individual departmental pages in the estimates shows what revenues are credited to a vote and re-spent, and then what additional amounts Parliament is being asked to approve through an additional vote. There are some $14.8 billion of those adjustments. That's in the net adjustment.
The “adjustments to reconcile” reflects a different sort of gap, if you like, between the accounting bases. That's the “near cash” versus “accrual” basis, which the committee has had quite a number of discussions around. Given the fact that the estimates are not yet on an accrual basis, we have a further substantial, multi-billion dollar adjustment there. That is a difference that has been in place since 2003, when the budget moved to accrual.