Thank you.
I'll think about the second one, but I'd have to go back to when I first started in the sector side, which goes back to the mid-1970s when we had the royal commission on the cost of moving grain. There has been a process for some time whereby the outside organizations--farm organizations as well as the railways--provide information to a third party, so it can determine as well as possible what is fair and reasonable. Our concern is we don't have a process that allows other parties to put forward their views. If it's just the railway and the agency, unfortunately—and we have a lot of respect for the agency—history has suggested that quite often the railways come off first best rather than second best.
It's important that there be an open process, open from the perspective of players coming in, recognizing that the proprietary information of the railway has to be respected, but that other stakeholders have a chance to come in to ensure there is balance at the table. We very much support the fact that clause 57 has been introduced, but if it doesn't realize the kinds of benefits that it should for farmers, then tens of millions of dollars could be lost once again. We went through this costing process previously. That's how we came up with the current numbers and a revenue cap. It has not served us well in that respect.
The concern we expressed, as we go forward with implementing clause 57, was to ensure other experts are allowed to bring their views to the table when the agency goes through that exercise.