I would say two things. From a parliamentarian perspective and potentially even the media, although I shouldn't speak for them, when they think of departmental spending, they typically think in terms of programs in the strategic outcome structure. There's a stronger link to what would be voted on in terms of how they think of departments. Very few people think of departments in terms of capital upgrading and grants and contributions.
There's a stronger link there. There are reasons for wanting to know what departments spend in capital, operating, and grants and contributions, but you've strengthened the link between how people think of departmental spending and programs and what Parliament is voting.
The change in behaviour on the departmental side would be a change in how they actually control their spending, because we would now be asking them to basically control on a different basis. They would have to rethink their control structures. Instead of asking if they have the capital budget for that, because they can't exceed their capital vote, they would be asking what their spending looks like under the strategic outcome. They would have to change the way they think, plan, and budget. That was one of the key aspects of the discussions we had with departments.
I should say that when we surveyed departments, I believe 80 of them responded. They came back with information but also a lot of questions. They still have many questions as to what this might look like, with a lot of detailed questions that we haven't answered just yet. There's still some work to be done.