I very much agree with Madam Fraser. It's not one-size-fits-all, and this is important for committee members to appreciate.
I'll give you an example. If, for instance, someone requires a contract, they require a screening, a reliability check, at the lowest level--protected A--it can be done in days. If I remember, it is three days. It can be a bit more complicated, but it's measured in days. Obviously, to be clear--and this is where Madam Fraser is--if it's run-of-the-mill we can be pretty efficient and therefore not create a burden on either business or capacity for the government to issue contracts.
Where it gets to be more difficult--and this is where the OAG focused--is when you get into the more sensitive files. There, clearly, when we're talking about clearances at a secret or top secret level, we are now measuring progress in months. So this is very different.
It is very important for whoever decides there is a security requirement to make the right call, because if the call is one of top secret or secret, there will be an impact. It's not a negative impact. It's going to be a period of time to do the job correctly.
The majority of so-called screenings taking place for government activity are done at the screening level, which often is done in days. We're talking in thousands. If I remember, going on memory, it's like 50,000 clearances or reliability checks per annum. The workload is measured in days.
I don't minimize that. It has to be done, but I would like to think it is not creating a huge burden vis-à-vis the benefits.