Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications - 24/09/2015 - Smart information and communications technology in the design and planning of infrastructure

GUY, Dr Ben, Chief Executive Officer, Urban Circus Pty Ltd

Committee met at 12:59

CHAIR ( Mrs Prentice ): I declare open the committee's public hearing for the inquiry into the role of smart ICT in the design and planning of infrastructure. Today's public hearing will provide the committee with an opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses as part of the inquiry. I welcome Dr Ben Guy to provide evidence today. Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and, therefore, has the same standing as proceedings of the House. I invite you to make a brief opening statement, if you wish, before we proceed to discussion.

Dr Guy : Thank you. We have been building digital cities and digital infrastructure and precincts for about 10 years. Using this smart ICT, we give the clients the power to play with space. I am a PhD in planning. I am an urban planner, and I see that urban planners are a little under-represented in the inquiry. I guess that I am here leading that charge and wanting to give the government—and Victoria has been an excellent example of doing this—the power to manipulate space, manipulate cities and manipulate infrastructure in a very efficient way. We call this digital planning. This is the new age of planning. I see a very strong representation of digital engineering and BIM, and we are on the urban planning side, bringing together the buildings and the infrastructure. Sometimes it is called PIM digital planning. There are a lot of words for these things.

I note that good engineering does not always imply good planning, and there are plenty of examples of well-engineered roads in the wrong places. We saw things like the Boston 'Big Dig' spending over $20 billion sinking a highway that was kind of in the wrong spot. For those who have been to London, there is a place called Oxford Circus or Piccadilly Circus; Circus is a representation of fantastic places, and that is what we are all about. I think here what we really want to hear about is value return to the Australian economy and to our cities. We note that we have a minister for cities now, which is fantastic, in my personal view. For example, in Melbourne, one of our cases in point, over 700 development applications have gone; conversations that used to take nine months now take about nine minutes, the clients claim, using this smart ICT.

We have examples from major road projects where over $10 million was spent on early engineering, and we came in for about a tenth of that price and in a month—it was 12 months; it is down to one month—re-engineered the whole process and helped everybody see that perhaps that was not the right solution. In Defence, if you are involved in that, the decision times have gone from months to minutes, across hundreds of stakeholders. So there is a compression in time in that process. As a recent example: only last week I heard that a process that was stuck for 18 years in difficult conversations has been resolved in about three months. We are working in Gallipoli, in Turkey. We have sold into the US. We are a wholly owned Australian company. My wife and I started the company. We built the technology here and are on most major infrastructure projects in the country. Our objective is to commercialise the workflow and get some funding to help us do that.

I would like to highlight that one of the major things that you, as the committee, could do for us, as a small Australian entrepreneurial start-up—and it is happening, and New South Wales are actually leading the charge here at the moment—is opening up the geospatial data, as you have done with things like the transport timetables. People can come along and make a little app that helps you find when the tram or the train is coming. As I say, New South Wales have made that available. We have transformed that geospatial data into a full-cloud online digital platform that is available for people to come in and get this return on investment. It makes procurement a little bit easier as well, because we can get ahead of the pack.

Another thing that I would query is giving large buckets of funding to organisations like the CRCs, the NICTAs and the CSIROs of the world, which does not benefit us, the small guys trying to innovate and be entrepreneurial. It has never been to our advantage, and I would question whether that was the right methodology for you to adapt in that that process, just because of their commercial drivers and potential empire-building type incentives. That will do for my introduction. Thank you very much for inviting me.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: What sort of data capacity is needed to operate the 3D software?

Dr Guy : If you can use Google Earth or if you can play a computer game like SimCity or Civilization, then you can do this. We have created some tools that have gone that the national standards for Austroads and converted about 400 pages of really complicated engineering into a tool where you can go, 'Click, click, click, I have just built a highway,' and you can start testing out its compliance to national standards. So we try and to make it easy.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: Do you contract with organisations or governments to do the 3D modelling, or do you sell them the software?

Dr Guy : A bit of both; we enable. The Victorian government, as I put in my submission, are a case in point. They now have a small team—three to four guys—sitting inside the planning division. I note that Richard Wynne, who is actually a personal user of our software, is in there importing development applications, reviewing them and testing shadow impacts. They do not charge us consulting fees for that. We find that the large projects do want some help. No matter how much technology you have—and I will not be too sexist—boys are not so good at talking to each other. So sometimes they need some help actually getting on, communicating and collaborating, even when they have all the technologically going on there. So we play that role too. So we are enablers, is really the core of that.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: Other organisations that have appeared before us have suggested to the committee that we should recommend to government that BIM standards become compulsory in Australia and become part of building codes and planning procedures. What is your view on that?

Dr Guy : I am fairly impartial. Yes or no, it is happening anyway. We are out there doing this. I also note that a lot of recommendations around format and getting standards in format. We have actually never found a problem. We have found people who cannot get data talking to other data maybe just do not know what they are talking about. It has not been a barrier for us, personally, but maybe we are in a slightly different space. I am open either way to it. We are doing it. We are being entrepreneurial with that and just pushing it forward. If you guys want to force it from above, that is okay. I am impartial. The return on investment is there, so it would naturally occur. Open the data up, is what I would ask of you.

Ms MARINO: Opening the data is one thing, but one of the things that we have also heard about is the different systems and software around the nation. How do we, without undue regulation, achieve national standards for data storage and access?

Dr Guy : Again, it has not been a problem for us. We were in Perth recently, and you have data sitting in Esri products, in Hexagon products and in 12d, Bentley, Autodesk and all these kinds of things. It is our skill—that is what we do—to pull that data out, mash it all up, create interesting new products and enable the clients to do various things within the planning space. So, again, it has not been a barrier for us in our 10 years and $70 billion worth of infrastructure experience. If other people are telling you different, I am not going to say that they are wrong. I would say, from my point of view, do not get too caught up on it.

Ms MARINO: So you do not see that as an issue or a challenge for what we might recommend here?

Dr Guy : It could be. From my personal experience, if you were to say to me, 'I have some geospatial data that was collected on a Trimble machine,' or, 'it sits in Autodesk or Bentley,' I would not mind. What I would want to know is how accurate it is, how valid it is and how good it is. I would do something magical with that, from that point. I do not care where it sits. I am impartial.

Ms MARINO: Thank you.

Mr PITT: When this inquiry wraps up, obviously we will have to make recommendations to government about what we should do in the future. On the physical location of the data, how would you recommend that we handle that? If we go out and 3D map every piece of infrastructure in the country, that is an enormous amount of data. Where should it live? Should it live with local government with access? Should it live with state government? Should it be overseen by, for example, the National Archives? Do you have any recommendations about how we could physically do this? Obviously—with upkeep, maintenance, changing standards and everything else that needs to be managed—it is a very, very large program.

Dr Guy : Thank you. That is a great question. I have just put 5,000 square kilometres of New South Wales on the cloud. It cost me about $1,000 and took me about three days. That is about a terabyte of data. It is all aerial photography in ECW format and lidar. Amazon Web Services are not infinitely big, but they are pretty damn big. So I would say that that is not such a problem.

Mr PITT: How many data points are in that and how accurate—

Dr Guy : It is probably about four points per metre into that level of data, and I think lidar is generally around 30 centimetres accurate in the XY, and then there is a Z. For example, with Inland Rail it was more inconvenient for the client to send us a hard drive. It took about a day to get to us; we will upload it to the cloud anyway. In terms of who is responsible for hosting and maintaining it, that is a very good and interesting question. In terms of maintenance, that is almost a quite different question again. It seems to me desirable to be able to use the cloud and the services that are there now, which is exactly what we do, where you can go into this digital model and clip and ship. A case in point: this morning we got a phone call from someone building a Christmas window dressing for the Myer window. I cannot tell you where, because it is secret, but it is based on a particular building. They wanted to get this particular building so that they can make a foam replica using laser scanning of buildings. I would say to them, 'Go into our cloud version, clip and ship and download it. It will take you about five minutes and pay $50,' or something like that. The solutions are actually right there. Capturing the data is getting pretty cheap, really, isn't it? We have just captured a whole city for 100 grand.

Mr PITT: It depends on your application; 30 centimetres might not be accurate for some applications.

Dr Guy : That is right; 30 centimetres is certainly not.

Mr PITT: So it depends on what standard you set. Something else that you spoke about was Defence. Defence, unfortunately, has a reputation for overrun and all sorts of other challenges. You have said that there are projects that you have managed which have said some savings. Could you expand on that a little bit?

Dr Guy : A lot of the savings that we offer are through the intuitive nature of using this smart ICT. Say that you are trying to understand something that Nola is putting forward to you, she has an idea for putting the front door here and your idea is here—oftentimes you have a different picture in your head about that—and I am offering you a CAD drawing or I am offering you a document. Instead, if you just have it there in 3D, if it is visual and if it is simple, then you can understand each other in about five minutes in one meeting and have a meaningful conversation. So in all these situations, what we are really doing is preventing misunderstanding and supporting, I guess, the C part of ICT—the communication process. It is almost the intuitiveness that is the important bit here. It is easy.

Mr PITT: I would have said that the Anzac frigate design had already done that. They had three-dimensional modelling, as far as I am aware. What is the difference between what you offer now and what is already available in CAD, for example?

Dr Guy : That is a great question. I guess in our particular space we are kind of urbanists and we bring lots of pieces together. you have heard about BIM a lot. Then there is this thing, PIM. For example, going back to Melbourne, there are like 70 or 80 BIMs in Melbourne, but how do they sit inside its context? How do they integrate with everything else? How does the rifle range in Defence sit next to where the council is trying to put in something and the aeroplanes are taking off and the obstacle limitation surface? How does that all integrate? That seems to be where we personally find we add a lot of value—bringing the Bentley together with the Esri, the Autodesk and all of these different formats, mashing that all together and giving you a level of confidence, which sometimes might be 30 centimetres and sometimes might be one millimetre in accuracy. That seems to be where we find, for the Australian economy, you are going to get a lot of benefits in terms of bringing that together early across formats, across disciplines and across adjacencies. Here is the highway; it is sitting there in a BIM model. The guy sitting over there on the neighbouring street just cares about how it feels in relation to his house. So bringing those two things together is your magic.

Mr GILES: Thank you, Dr Guy, for your submission and for your evidence today. One thing that I would be interested in hearing a little bit more from you about is the enabling role that you have played, particularly in the context of the digital Melbourne roundtable.

Mr Guy : Planners do not often have the same budgets as the engineering and the major project delivery. A lot of the information is sitting there in the geospatial environment. There is a lot of great data sitting on government coffers—federal, state and local. A lot of people have tried 3-D stuff before. We get them to put in our platform, as exactly as Richard Wynne's department has done. Then we come in and we teach them a little bit. We say, 'Hey, how about this? What if you do this?' We understand some of their workflow difficulties. For example, in Melbourne all of the buildings in the CBD are tower and podium forms. They are orthogonal. They said: 'Generally, we just want to go four clicks, like a piece of Lego, and pull up a tower, and have a discussion very quickly around gross floor area, shadows, impacts. It is kind of what it is generally like before we go off and do architecture.' So we understood that workflow. We listened to the client. We went away and built a tool that went 'one, two, three, four, click'. It allowed them to clear the existing building that was there. Then we gave them that training and capability. Rather than now paying us consultant fees to do that for them, you now have an army of digital planners doing that for themselves.

In response, politically—because things happen every day in the political world—the minister can walk in and ask any question from any street corner, understand exactly how it is and get the direct trusted answer of what that is. That is a real issue in all cities, I think. Sometimes you get a beautiful rendering, but can you trust it? Because it is your model, and it is your Melbourne, you can trust that those data are accurate to this level. If it was going to shadow on the parliamentary gardens—that was an important recent example.

Mr VAN MANEN: Thank you, Dr Guy, for your presentation and for your submission. I think all of us here are interested in how this software, or these ideas, are used if smart ICT is going to assist us as governments deliver better infrastructure more cost effectively. Ultimately, that is the outcome that we are looking for. In that context, could you explain for the committee in a little bit more detail if possible what the software involves, how it works—without, obviously, giving away too many commercial secrets—and what data are actually required for you to ensure that the software can function effectively? Then could you touch on how that has been used in some of the projects in Melbourne and what the cost benefits have been as a result of that software being used on those projects?

Mr Guy : That is a big question. Thank you very much. Essentially, I will go through the process again. At the very basic level there is a thing called GIS which has been around for a while. It has been around for about 20 years. Everyone invested very heavily in GIS 20 years ago. It is geospatial information. Typically, it is how you control your rate base. You are really interested in how big that person's land is because that is how much you can tax them for when it comes to the end of the financial year. We take a lot of that data out of that. So it is geospatial data. We turn into this 3-D space. What is really important is: we all hate waiting for an internet page to load, right? We hate it. You need speed and agility so that when you are in a conversation—as per my conversation earlier about you guys talking about where the front door goes—you want that to be able to occur very fast. Our brains are very fast machines. We can understand a lot of information very quickly, so what we have done is we have taken that GIS type geospatial information, which might now be collected from drones or from lidar. It is becoming cheaper and cheaper all the time. It is awesome, and we have put it in an accelerated graphics package. So there is a graphics card. There is a CPU, a central processing unit. The great thing is now those things actually can exist on the cloud, so you do not even need anything particularly powerful. We run our software, for example, on this. I am running it on this phone—sorry, because I know this is auditory. So 6,000 square kilometres of high-detailed lidar and point clouds are running through your phone. Let us say AECOM here have designed a great road for somewhere in Western Sydney or Melbourne. We literally press the import button; it is a thing called georeferencing, which is where basically things need to know where they are on the surface of the earth. It clicks in—there is a button you press which clears the existing site—and what you are doing you are looking at something in context, and that context is the value I am really trying to bring to the industry, because too many times we look at things in isolation, and it is the context that really adds a lot of the value in terms of how these things fit together. I reckon I have only answered the first part of question. I cannot remember the second part.

Mr VAN MANEN: What cost-benefits have been achieved as a result of using that software on various projects? I would like you to expand on that last bit, only because I know we have somebody here in the audience who might be interested in this. How much detail have you got on our subsurface infrastructure?

Dr Guy : We have as much detail as you have, if you know what I mean. The data exists. There is some particular work we are doing now, where it is about mud and the alignment is obviously very important if you are putting a piece of infrastructure in. It is on nice hard rock, which is good to bolt into. If that data exists in these GIS packages. As to a question earlier from Keith Pitt, which is about the accuracy of that, it is only as accurate as the data inputs, and those people who provide that data are obviously critical in this whole process. Yes, subsurface and AirportLink—we did all that kind of work. Melbourne Metro, Sydney Metro and anything underground can all be collated together very simply. The second part of the question was—

Mr VAN MANEN: What is the cost-benefit on projects?

Dr Guy : If I were good at doing that then maybe I would be a bit more successful. So 700 development applications from nine months to nine minutes in terms of deciding that. Who can calculate that? I do not know. Maybe you guys are better than me. It is doing a major project that took a year and $11 million, taking it down to a month and $1 million. That is just for that, but the cost-benefit and the opportunity cost is what we keep hearing. In the Defence example that you talked about earlier, they are particularly interested in reducing the decision times. For the event that happens at Gallipoli, for example, the poor event organiser had to manage conversations between the French, the New Zealanders, the Turkish and the Australians, and that would take this enormous amount of effort, literally flying over to Turkey to have these conversations. He can now have them virtually. What is the cost-benefit of that? We are doing some work now in Abu Dhabi—the international relations between the Prince and the Prime Minister that we are supporting there by doing this kind of technology in having particular discussions around particular places. I do not know what the cost-benefit analysis of that is. I wish I did. If you could help me—

Mr VAN MANEN: Your clients should be able to work that out and advise you of that. In shrinking those time frames from 12 months to a short period of time, what are the key catalysts with the software that is being utilised that allows that decision-making time frame to be so compressed? Obviously the assessment process for any project for any set of development applications still has to be the same—Australian standards or whatever the case may be.

Dr Guy : Absolutely true. We are in the planning space and the engineering still needs to be done. So the engineering is big money, a lot of risk, and you have highly skilled professionals doing that. So we ran a series of workshops recently in Western Australia with Main Roads, and it was taking them a year to do this phase called optioneering: 'Should we put the road like this on the left? Should we put it like this on the right? Should we go over? Should we go under?' Those are quite difficult decisions. By having the geospatial information there—so here we have this sensitive environment and we are confident enough to five centimetres to 50 centimetres—it is good enough, and then we are able to come in and weave actual pieces of infrastructure through that space, live, in a meeting with the smart people in the room. That would have taken a month to go away and do a bit of a planning study, come back, have another conversation, go have another conversation, take another month, come back—$100,000 a hit—compared to what you can actually do now. So it is that speed and that integration.

Mr VAN MANEN: Your capacity to do that was based on the fact that you obviously had access to the geospatial data that Main Roads Western Australia gave you access to—or was that already held in an open-source format?

Dr Guy : No, we had to get it. That is a closed format. We could only use that data for that project, because that was in a closed system, whereas New South Wales are saying, 'Hey, let's make it open.' We can go and offer that to anyone now. As a matter of fact, they can come and do it themselves on that platform, so we are really democratising that planning and design process and reducing those decision times. Some people are comfortable with that open concept—some organisations, state governments and bureaucracies—and some really are not. That would be a good challenge for you, as leaders of the country, to help people be comfortable with that openness.

Mr VAN MANEN: The government has to pay to get that first, so that is the other part of it.

Dr Guy : You actually have more data than you think. You have actually got pretty much all of it, in my view.

Mr VAN MANEN: One of the issues that were raised at a previous hearing was around technological obsolescence. So, given the variety of platforms that you have mentioned that you can collate into your models, what is the risk that, over time, as systems develop and as pieces of software are developed, you are going to run into these technological hurdles—that you have pools of data stored in a certain data format now and maybe in 15 or 20 years time, with the software then, it will not talk to those old data pools? How do we ensure that we keep those data pool formats up to date to be able to be continually utilised?

Dr Guy : Keep them digital; keep them 3-D. Once it is 3-D, digital and georeferenced, in multiple grid formats—you might know that some parts of Australia are in map grid 54 and some other parts are in map grid 56. Australia is moving slightly to the east every year, seven centimetres, so we have to keep up with all that information. As long as you do not, as is wont to happen from time to time, give digital information and then have that get turned into a print, scanned in and then hung in a filing cabinet somewhere—that is reducing the quality of the data—I cannot foresee, from my point of view, if you have digital geospatial information, that it is ever going to become redundant. The software will become redundant. I am constantly in the job of putting myself out of business so no-one else does. I am reinventing myself, but the data that sits in it is great, it is persistent and it is forever. It will be fine. As I said, Australia is moving seven centimetres east every year, so you have to fiddle with the geospatial data a little bit, but the actual purity of the data is fine. The upkeep is probably difficult, so doing a lidar overview every couple of years—you are really only talking a few hundred thousand dollars now; I think it is pretty small bickies in the great scheme of things.

CHAIR: You mentioned open access, or open source, and data being made available to Australian-owned companies. Are you saying it should not be made available, except perhaps at a price, to non-Australian-owned companies?

Dr Guy : Being an Australian-owned company, working in Australia, it would certainly be good for us. We have had to fight all of the way. There has been some real scepticism about start-ups within Australia. We have applied for major tenders and the response has been: 'We won't give that to you, because you are small and Australian. We want someone big and American.' I think that is ill-informed and unfortunate.

CHAIR: I could not agree more. But, given the world we live in, what about security threats? Isn't that a big concern?

Dr Guy : That is a very good question, with New South Wales going to open data. Confidentiality is obviously very important throughout this process. We have what we call a base 3-D model, which is exactly what you can see in, say, Google Earth, HERE Maps, Nearmap or the 50 other services that are out there. If you give me a proposal for some fantastically great big pink panda that you are going to put in the middle of Brisbane, that stays confidential for you and no-one else can share that, and that is open. If there are really sensitive sites such as Defence sites or other places like that that you do not want to share, what do you do with that? I do not know.

CHAIR: We saw examples in Western Australia of people mapping potentially where roads and bridges will go. If someone wanted to disrupt the CBD and you could have access to open data and say, 'if you place a device here it will destroy the section and gridlock the city'—and there are people out there who do not want to be good citizens—then that has to be a concern, doesn't it?

Dr Guy : Maybe it does. Can you do that on Google Maps, or on any other facility, now?

CHAIR: I was thinking of maybe a football stadium; looking at the construction of it and finding out where you could put something to cause the most damage.

Dr Guy : On the internals?


Dr Guy : Yes, I think that is interesting. Generally we tend to work on the externals of buildings and pieces of infrastructure. I think it is an interesting policy decision. The inside of the MCG, for example; how many levels of detail. I have worked on projects before where they have said the inside of, say, a road tunnel should be kept very secret in case someone wanted to plant a device, even during construction. The world is going open; it is going more and more open all the time. I wonder if it is an unstoppable force. In this case it is a thought that the benefits are going to outweigh the risks by so much. Maybe we were even worried about online maps previously.

CHAIR: Although we could benefit from some of the information for seeing the insides of things for activities such as planning maintenance and emergency situations—you know, if there is a flood you could know who you need to move and when, and where your weak points are. In those cases it is good to have the information available for different agencies.

Dr Guy : I think the benefits far, far outweigh the risks, and there always will be naughty people doing naughty things. I remember hearing a story about a terrible mine incident where there were some people trapped in a mine and in my head I was like, 'Man, if you had that in 3-D you would know where they are.' You would be able to get to them, where it must be so complicated without that. So there is the safety aspect and it is the same with, say, the airport link tunnel. If there was an incident you would have it mapped exactly in 3-D and available at your fingertips, and you would be able to instruct—

CHAIR: See where the problem was, and the safest way to get out.

Dr Guy : That is right. Exactly. The benefits outweigh the risks.

CHAIR: I do not know if you have looked at any of the evidence presented earlier on in our hearings, particularly from government departments. We had one department that said government should lead the way in this area, and we have had another department say it is the role of private enterprise to lead the way and that government should follow. Do you have a view on that?

Dr Guy : My view is: support us and get out of the way. You—the royal 'you', that is, being the government—are spending taxpayers' money, and I see the logic. There is a couple of guys in government—usually guys—who hold some of this geospatial data and they have a subscription service; maybe it is a million or $2 million or $5 million that is being held up. It would be the same concept as letting the timetables out—by releasing that information you are going to be allowing billions and billions of dollars of innovation and productivity gain to occur just in the private sector. It is almost like you are getting in our way at the moment. We want to help you, but we cannot help you—like with Digital Melbourne, where I cannot even let other agencies of the same government use Digital Melbourne because of your IP rules.

CHAIR: Do we need to change legislation to make that possible?

Dr Guy : I do not know the answer to that. You need to change policy. Whatever New South Wales has done, which is to say: 'Just give us a call. We will put it on a hard drive, send it to you and charge you a hundred bucks for the hard drive.' Whatever that policy is, you have already got that in place for a lot of data, just not for the 3-D geospatial data. Whoever is worried—I do not know whether it is the concern that you had about security—then just stop worrying. Even the UK has even done it. Even Ordnance Survey—the oldest-school, most constricted people in the world, I think, and I lived there for a few years—have opened up and said: 'Hey! It is all here. Come on, private industry—come and do something amazing for us!' That is what we want to do, but I do not have the money, as you said, to collect the data. I do not have those millions of dollars to go and collect that data.

CHAIR: And you see that as government's role to collect it?

Dr Guy : No, I think the private sector can do it. We have got a partner with a surveying company. We have just built a Digital Melbourne, where they have provided the data and we have provided the software and are putting it online. It is great, but it has taken a while to get there. You do need to watch out for the contracts you sign with some of the data capture companies who will lockout other suppliers. I do not think that is cool. Watch the fineprint, I would say.

CHAIR: Sounds like Telstra.

Mr PITT: As part of this discussion, we have had a fair indication there may not be the capability within federal departments to manage these projects. I am looking for your view. Do the technical skills currently exist inside the federal government departments to actually manage a project like this?

Dr Guy : No.

Mr PITT: That is consistent, so that is fine.

Dr Guy : I worked really hard with a particular state government agency whom I will not mention and sold someone actually at a loss to ourselves to try to build up the capability from the inside, and it was too difficult. Culturally, it was too hard. Too many rubber bands in the way, so we just pulled out.

CHAIR: There being no further questions, thank you for attending the public hearing today. The secretariat will send you a draft transcript of proceedings, so requests can be made to correct any errors of transcription. If you feel that there is other information that would benefit the inquiry, we would appreciate receiving it, or if you want to respond to evidence from other witnesses that would be great.

Dr Guy : So I can respond to evidence from others—interesting.

CHAIR: You certainly can.

Dr Guy : Thank you for holding the inquiry.

CHAIR: Thank you.