Yes, the language was used because it's proposed the stakeholders can give input into that document. There are certainly areas where, for sure, we're not going to require security clearance for risk group twos. That can definitely can be put in there, and I think that's reasonable and can be clarified.
The other areas were intentionally done so they give the stakeholders a chance, through our next two years of consultation, to mould it into something they can work with and is feasible. I think our intention was good in that we were wanting to not put this in concrete and black and white terms, so they are allowed to give input into it.
We're certainly happy to further clarify. We'll further reassure our intentions if some language changes are required. It is proposed only because we feel that document and its ensuing regulations and programs require a lot of input from stakeholders.