As a ministry, we look at all the gender implication statements, but I would signal again that's once something is submitted to a cabinet committee.... In some ways this isn't a useful tool to change that policy, but we can also see where good analysis has been done and where not so good analysis has been done and maybe use that as an indicator about where we should offer our services to our colleagues in the policy community.
We also have what we call a second opinion role that is mandated, which means we have the ability to comment on all cabinet papers before they go to cabinet. And again, we're selective about which papers we comment on. So these are papers that are just about to be promulgated through the cabinet process.
We can use this leverage point to find things where gender implications haven't been well addressed. But obviously because that's right at the end of the process, it can be very difficult to create something, and as we would say, we are most effective when we pick the policies that we are involved in and we're actually on the project team from the very beginning.
I would say to you again that having that ability to have a second opinion on policy advice so we can put our comments and our minister can have gender-based comments within the cabinet process is a very important part of our role, as is requiring departments to do a gender implication statement. That puts the stakes in the ground; it's the institutional framework. I think you've heard my message. I think my advice to you is it's actually about the quality of the thinking that is coming through to you and that you have to do something more to think about how to manage this.