That's correct.
Even if we look at the example of indexing—the indexing provisions in sections 150 and 151—in that case, the agency brings affected stakeholders in on a confidential basis. Everyone has their chance to make their views known at the table, before they ultimately make the decision on the index for the revenue cap.
At minimum, we would say this should have been available in the past, and of course this is a large multi-million-dollar issue. There have been times when experts in the field have been given access to railway information on a confidential basis to be able to debate their own analysis and make the case as to what the correct number should be.
I'm saying that part of the exercise is that we need other stakeholders brought into this process when the agency deals with clause 57.
Second, there is a benchmark out there, and if there's a divergence in terms of the numbers we get from the railway and what's actually in the industry, I think someone—and probably the agency—should be empowered to go out there and determine what the difference is and why.
Third, as we mentioned, if the private shops can do it for less, why would we not let them carry it out and lower the costs for farmers, as opposed to necessarily leaving it with the railways?