I'll make some brief comments on that, and then maybe Mr. Suur can handle the first part of the question, briefly as well.
Under annual appropriations, we run appropriations for ordinary annual services, which basically means anything that's pre-existing, that is a normal part of keeping things ticking over, such as salaries and these sorts of things, and then we run another type of annual appropriation that covers new outcomes or other kinds of one-offs and these sorts of things. We make the split that way.
In each case our appropriations are divided by portfolio, by agency, and by outcome. This means that Parliament can always see what is the purpose, expressed in terms of an outcome, to which it is appropriating.
We have recently had a lot of High Court interest in our appropriations system, and we are finding that the requirements on specificity in our appropriations and in how Parliament approves appropriations are evolving. The High Court interpretations effectively are putting a lot more weight on legislation or legislative-type authority that specifies purposes and that sits outside the appropriations but is referred to in the appropriations. We are evolving in that respect, but in essence, Parliament sees the outcome to which an appropriation is being made in all of our bills.
I might just ask Mr. Suur to talk briefly about the performance side.