I can respond to that. From an ops centre to ops centre point of view, we were very engaged with the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA down there. We had a 24/7 connectivity, both in a secure and unsecure manner. There's also a common chat frequency on the international portal with New Zealand, Australia, the United States, the U.K., and ourselves. So both on cyber and national security events, we're continually exchanging information immediately as it happens and sharing our threat assessments and our information, and likewise them with us.
In regard to this legislation--and maybe I'll just to go back to where it changes--a lot of things that have happened over the last few years have just been happening because it's the right thing to do and people will collaborate and say, yes, this makes sense. This legislation provides the authority to make sure our minister has the authority to ensure that everything is consistent when we talk about the federal house being in order.
As much as other departments are gaining in recognizing that there is a need for a whole-of-government coordination, there's no legislated mandate to do that. So when the question becomes, who is ultimately in charge, this legislation provides, from a leadership point of view, that the minister is ultimately in charge of the leadership and coordination. I think that is very new, and I think it is very significant when we're taking a look at a federal response. That then places us well with our U.S. colleagues in DHS, who have a very similar mandate under presidential directives.