If I could add to Brandon's comments, when that system first came in in our office I was skeptical, as a good auditor, about whether it would be beneficial or not, but I decided to continue the approach. Actually, the effectiveness of it has been remarkable. A lot of the agency heads, with whom I deal on a day-to-day basis, are very alert to our categorization system. We use A, B, and C for our system: A is for the very significant matters that need attention quickly; B is for moderate matters but still important enough for the CEO's attention; and C is for minor and procedural matters. Agency heads in this town do not like the thought of their agency being reported on whether they have these high-level A or B findings, so they are very focused on eliminating them. They see it as a bit of a matter amongst their peers that they should be seen to be running a high-integrity, well-controlled organization, and their shorthand assessment of that is the number of As and Bs the audit office provides in its ranking. It has actually had a much more powerful effect here in Australia than I envisaged in the first place.
We use it, we find it effective, and that's the reason we have just raised it for the OAG to consider.