It's something that will be in the written submission later on, but part of the issue I think is the availability of the data as well. When I received a copy of the task force report I sent in a request to the secretariat for the information, essentially for the polling data and the names of the third-party experts who were consulted. I just received a response maybe half an hour ago, so it makes it very difficult for us, for me anyway, to build a real presentation and consult meaningfully with actual data. If we'd had that data, I think we would have been able to consult in a better way.
It's also concerning to me that when I did receive the response from the secretariat, they named the primary partner, but they also say they've dealt with a bunch of other experts and they don't seem to be naming those experts. The question I had specifically addressed, especially for postal banking, was did you seek experts from the banking industry? I would personally see that as some form of conflict of interest, and I think you'd need to disclose that in the discussion paper. I didn't, again, see that. I didn't see any form of disclosure. I also don't understand why you can't name, on the paper itself, the actual experts who you consulted. The polling data can be pretty large, but I don't know why you wouldn't be able to attach that in the paper to name specifically the experts who you consulted.
The paper itself seems to, in a lot of cases, go in one direction essentially to build justification for an expected result, as opposed to providing what I believe to be an objective or empirical review of the facts so that any individual can have a real discussion about the options in front of us.