I appreciate the question and I don't want to sound evasive, but it's really for the government to decide its relative priorities. There are lots of things it can spend finite resources on. This is one and there are others; and cabinets and ministers of finance have a tough job in choosing relative priorities.
I think all I was trying to convey, and I do this with the greatest of respect for parliamentarians, is that funding without the structural reforms will only lead to temporary gains. I'm not saying it's not worth doing and that if the Minister of Finance were to give me $100 million—which isn't very likely any time soon—I could get some results out of it in terms of building things or moving programs along.
All I was trying to convey is that, if you want those changes to last and to be enduring, we have to get to some of the issues Madam Fraser has raised.