I don't at this point, frankly. I have elements, and I made references to them earlier on, about accountability; ownership; transparency; how decisions will be arrived at; whether this will be reviewed, for instance, by the OAG; who will define results. There are a number of parameters that would compose what good governance would be. At the macro level, I would say that in my mind, governance implies clear decision-making functions, establishment of resources and results to be achieved, tracking those results, and reporting transparently to the public. But above and beyond that, there are plenty of models. They are all in my head, swirling, if you wish. Some have a person responsible, like on Capitol Hill, the architect. It used to be the Sergeant-at-Arms, in the case of the U.K.
So the basic elements are someone in charge, some unit that has the capacity to deliver, and some decision-making function that agrees on what the priorities are. I fundamentally believe, and Madam Fraser said so, that it starts with what the priorities are and why. When you agree to that collectively, things--in my mind--fall into place.
That's what you've seen with our execution. I'm very pleased to say we're very satisfied with what we've done. It has been recognized by the OAG. But at the end of the day, when people agree on what the priority is—number one, number two, number three, they agree on the game plan—things normally fall into place correctly. That's what we've seen when we're given the ball. And it could be anyone else, frankly—I believe that—who is capable and has the wherewithal. They will deliver because the priorities are clear and not shifting.