Basically, the finance department did what we always do with GBA. You take an issue and break it down into its components in terms of comparative results, comparative situations. It always depends on data, and that's not just for Finance; it's for any department in any country where the data is available.
In some cases, they could look at the exact percentages and ratios. Where dollar amounts might show up higher for women and lower for men, in terms of the relationship to income, the ratio would all of a sudden reverse the situation such that maybe women were actually better off than men, or benefiting more, etc. It was just applying that tool.
But as I said earlier, it became more interesting for Finance to ask, and I hesitate to use the word “philosophically” in economic and fiscal things, but almost with that approach: if there is a discrepancy here, where does it lie, and is it significant? What can we do with it or about it, or do we know enough about it to really distinguish that there should be changes made?
I guess it's a work in progress. If you compare the 2006 to the 2007 analysis, there's a degree of sophistication that has evolved from the first year to the second. They are enlarging; they're not stuck on the numbers as much. They're actually looking at the impact: if someone makes a choice to do this, is it the responsibility of the taxation system to work with that, or support it, or whatever? It's that kind of process that they did for the two past budgets and will be doing for the upcoming one.
They are also extending it beyond the taxation branch. The training is now available for the whole department, so they're looking at all of the different areas and asking, does it actually make sense?