Thank you, Mr. McPhee.
What I want to say is actually a product of several of the audit officers--and there were two other audit officers who were involved in the performance audit part of it. We all felt that the recommendation of the 2004 report, as we said here, is still valid. It was common practice, as Mr. McPhee says, in Australia to use footnoting for sourcing evidence from, say, third parties or data from third parties, or from the agency being reviewed. It was also common practice in the other audit offices that were involved in this peer review. That's why we thought it was a valid suggestion in this report. I understand it is more widely also a common practice among audit officers.