Okay, I'll jump in first, Lesley.
Certainly having been in that seat, I will say that it's always encouraging to have the support of the committee. It's important to be able to ask the auditor what they looked at so you can fully understand the context of the findings.
It becomes a little less constructive when you challenge the auditor by saying, “Why didn't you look at this other stuff?” Well, they didn't, so you can have a discussion about how they made their selection, because it's important to understand. However, if it turns out to be, “Well, we didn't want you to look at that; we wanted you to look at this other thing”.... They make their selection taking into account many different views and they do it in a non-political way; they do it based on risk and significance, and on how they can make a contribution.
Some of those conversations are best had behind the scenes and not in a public way or it looks as though there's a battle going on, with some saying, “Well, we're not even going to support the audit report, so what's the point of even looking at it?” Then it can go down a fairly slippery slope pretty quickly when it looks as though there is no support for the work of the auditor. They have the luxury of getting into significant detail on a particular program area for which they've identified the biggest risks, and they're already trying to bring it up to a level that's of use to the committee.
Anyway, I think I have made my point that it can be quite a.... But it's also just fine to ask them in order to fully understand what they did look at, to fully understand how things went. They will likely be able to discuss only what they have looked at, versus some other side issues that might come up.