Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
10/11/2014

LINDLEY, Ms Michelle, Deputy Director, Legal Section, Australian Human Rights Commission

RAMAN, Ms Padma, Executive Director, Australian Human Rights Commission

TRIGGS, Professor Gillian, President, Australian Human Rights Commission

Committee met at 13:17.

CHAIR ( Senator Ian Macdonald ): Welcome. I declare open the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014. Time is very constrained. I know you are aware of the rules and regulations, Professor Triggs, of Senate committee hearings so I will not repeat them. The committee has your submission, which is submission No. 22. Do you have any amendments or additions to make to your submission? If not, perhaps we could have an opening statement from you and then we will proceed to questions from the committee.

Prof. Triggs : Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill. I wanted to make clear before I speak very briefly to this to say that we are here to speak exclusively in relation to the folding of the Privacy Commissioner into the Australian Human Rights Commission and what the implications are for the commission were that to take place. We have made three suggestions. One is that the Privacy Commissioner be maintained as a separate agency who continues to receive corporate services from the Australian Human Rights Commission. The other is that, privacy being a human right, the Privacy Commissioner should be brought in as a commissioner and treated like all other commissioners within the current governance structures of the Australian Human Rights Commission. And the other option is to change the bill and the explanatory memorandum to clarify that the president of the commission has control over the staffing and resources as envisaged by the PGPA Act.

Broadly speaking, our concerns with the current proposal are twofold. Firstly, in effect what it does is to create a new bubble within the Australian Human Rights Commission for the Privacy Commissioner that is unwieldy and will lead to all sorts of complications and potential conflict in the future. Secondly, we are concerned that the commission's independence under the Paris Principles will be threatened. As you will know, the Australian Human Rights Commission has been in existence now for 30 years. It has commanded, I think, the respect of all governments over that period, and crucial to its role and recognition within the international legal system is that we are independent and have control over budgets and how we expend those budgets, in compliance of course with the relevant legislation—in this case, the PGPA Act. So they are just the broad concerns that we have, and I am very happy, with my colleagues, to discuss any specific questions. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thanks very much, Professor Triggs. Do either of the other of you wish to make any comment? No? Then we will go to questions. Senator Collins, can I start with you?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, thank you, Chair. Professor Triggs, I understand the limitations of your submission on this occasion, so I will keep my questions within those. On this occasion, unlike this morning, you have been consulted about how this might work.

Prof. Triggs : Perhaps I could just clarify: we were not consulted before the bill was introduced, but we have subsequently had discussions with the Attorney-General's Department and with the Attorney.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Is this something relatively new for the Human Rights Commission in terms of what the current government understands to be the standard consultation processes for legislation? You may not have been with us when we heard from the department, in earlier evidence. When we asked about consultation, we were told that they had followed the standard consultation process within government and that, were it necessary—well, I might be putting words into somebody's mouth at the moment, so please take this as being from me rather than from the evidence, but, were that to have been necessary or appropriate, the Attorney-General's Department would have recommended it, whereas in the past, my impression, if I am not incorrect, would be that, even within the government consultation phase, the Human Rights Commission would have been consulted, in previous governments.

Prof. Triggs : It is usual practice to consult the commission if new legislation or amendments to legislation are to be introduced, and of course that is an efficient way of operating because we can make comments long before they find their way into a final drafted form, and that way we can ensure compliance with broad human rights provisions. With regard to this particular amendment, we really knew very little about this until there was a budget line that placed the budget funding into our budget. Then of course we started to ask questions, and then the amendment bill was introduced, and I think we had a few hours notice of that—or rather, I think we received it and it was already a fait accompli. But we have had opportunities to discuss this with the department, as I say, and with the Attorney, on occasion, subsequent to that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: But also subsequent to the drafting of the legislation?

Prof. Triggs : Subsequent to the drafting of the legislation, yes, because we had one very particular concern in which the word 'must' was used, in terms of my obligations as president, and I took particular exception to that, because that is a very obvious cutting across of the independence of the presidency and of the commission, and the Attorney agreed, readily, to exchange that word with the word 'may', which relieved some of our concerns, but we remain concerned about some of the other aspects of the current amendment bill.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Let us just run through the process then. We had a budget line—so, essentially, a budget announcement; cost savings, as I recall?

Prof. Triggs : Yes.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Subsequent to that, we had the legislation drafted and introduced, and it was not until after it had been introduced that you were consulted?

Prof. Triggs : That is correct.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Let me know if this is straying into areas you would rather not comment on, but, in terms of the savings element from the budget measures, is there an impact of these changes on the overall operations of the Human Rights Commission?

Prof. Triggs : I think that is a very important question. At the moment, the budget line comes across into the commission. It is expected in good faith that, as President, I will ensure that the budget line relating to the Privacy Commissioner will be money expended by that commissioner—so he will have those funds.

The concern that I have is that we are all subject to budget cuts and if there is some sense that somehow or another the Privacy Commissioner is in a separate bubble with monies always expended in that bubble then that will bleed money away from the Australian Human Rights Commission's other work because we have somehow or another got to fund that Privacy Commission work. That is a matter of some concern.

The aspect to your question that I would like to explore briefly is that I think it is very likely that over the coming months or year or so we will be increasingly under pressure to rationalise the activities of the Australian Human Rights Commission to meet budgetary concerns. That is where we are very likely to have questions of: why does the Privacy Commission have a media communications group, a technology group, a legal and policy advisers et cetera when we have all of those services running across the whole of the Australian Human rights commission for all of the six commissioners that are currently part of the commission? So if the objective is to rationalise and to genuinely take two separate agencies and make them one—at least in a limited way with the Privacy Commissioner—then that requires that there be some rationalisation of the way in which the services are offered. We cannot have this isolated bubble that is immune from all of the other pressures that are going to be on the commission to comply with budgetary constraints.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The budget line itself that came across to the Australian Human Rights Commission involved a significant curtailment of expenses on privacy or freedom of information issues, did it not?

Prof. Triggs : I believe it is a lower sum than would otherwise be the case. Perhaps that could be a question directed to the Information Commissioner and to the commission. But my understanding is that it would have been a larger sum in the normal course of events. The amount is lower, which, of course, has inevitable impacts on the staffing and on the kind of work that presumably the Privacy Commissioner can carry out.

Senator RHIANNON: I notice on the second page you have got three points. You talk about some suggestions for redrafting the bill and the explanatory memorandum to make it clear that the Australian Privacy Commission will be free to direct the staff assigned to him in compliance with his statutory functions. I note that after you became aware of these proposed changes there was a meeting with the Attorney-General and with the department. One of your suggestions was adopted—replace the word 'must' with 'may'. Was this suggestion also made about the points that you have raised here?

Prof. Triggs : Yes, I did say that we thought it was entirely reasonable that the new Privacy Commissioner should direct his staff in his statutory functions. But I was very concerned that there should be a specific provision to say that the staff is not under the direction of the commission and, for practical purposes, to my direction. That concern was put to the Attorney. The Attorney said that he would consider it and it was taken up by his advisers.

Senator RHIANNON: Have you heard back?

Prof. Triggs : I have had discussions with Ms Padma Raman, the executive director of the commission, with one of those advisers and we reached what we believe was some satisfactory words broadly along the lines that we are suggesting. However, that compromise that we had suggested was not ultimately accepted.

Senator RHIANNON: Was it not accepted by the Attorney-General?

Prof. Triggs : I accept that ultimately the Attorney would have accepted the advice that he was given by his adviser.

Senator RHIANNON: Do you understand why they did not accept that? Can you inform us why?

Prof. Triggs : I think they believed that the explanatory memorandum would solve the problem. In other words, the explanatory memorandum would say it would only be in relation to the functions of the Privacy Commissioner and there was no need to change the way in which the amendment was drafted. My concern is, as you would doubtless know, a court, if it ever came to that, would not need to look at an explanatory memorandum if the legislation is clear on its face. This is so clear in saying that the staff are under the direction of the commissioner—and not the commission—that it is very hard to see how you look at a contradictory or other view in an explanatory memorandum. So I am afraid we are not happy with that outcome. But we are also very unhappy about the fact that the Privacy Commissioner, it is envisaged, would come into the commission as an officer of the commission but would not be a commissioner within the commission and would not be subject to engagement with the governance structure of the commission as a whole. As I say, I use this analogy of a bubble because it is the clearest way of explaining what this amendment to the legislation purports to do.

Senator RHIANNON: Following your discussions, it was not agreed for an amendment to the bill. But did they agree to change the explanatory memorandum on the basis of your discussions?

Prof. Triggs : Yes, I believe they accepted that it needed to be clear in the explanatory memorandum what we were arguing.

Senator RHIANNON: So does that mean that it could be read that there was a contradiction between the explanatory memorandum and the bill, so the bill does not change but the explanatory memorandum does?

Prof. Triggs : Yes.

Senator RHIANNON: I would like to understand more the structure within your commission. What we are hearing is this change is unusual and I am still trying to understand the chain of command. You are using the word 'bubble' and maybe that is the best we can get. But you have got your job to do and this new person comes along and they have staff. Could you just flesh it out a little bit more the accountability and the direction of work so I could understand how all that will play out.

CHAIR: Could I interpose before you get to that along the same line. Could you tell me briefly how the two commissions work now. Who owns the staff? Who directs them? Who funds them? How would it operate if this bill were to pass?

Prof. Triggs : I can always speak with much more authority on my own act but, nonetheless, I think they basically operate in the same way. They are independent statutory bodies set up by legislation. They are set up deliberately to provide some distance from government so that the commissioners can speak clearly and without concern about their positions, based on evidence on any issues within their particular functions. The Australian Human Rights Commission is set up perhaps a little curiously but on the basis that the president is wholly and solely responsible for all that occurs within the commission and that is consolidated by the new professional governance and accountability.

CHAIR: So that is all of the commissioners and all of the staff?

Prof. Triggs : All are accountable to me as President and I am accountable for the financial management, policy and everything that happens in the commission. The six commissioners that we currently have with particular statutory obligations are: human rights, Tim Wilson; race, Tim Soutphommasane; gender, Ms Elizabeth Broderick; age and disability, Susan Ryan; children, Megan Mitchell; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice, Mick Gooda. Three of them have some particular statutory responsibilities not unlike those of the Privacy Commissioner within that commission. So it is not at all unusual, in fact it is quite usual, for commissioners to have statutory powers that are particular to their portfolio. So Mick Gooda, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice work, must report every year. He has certain obligations and so does Megan Mitchell in relation to children and so on.

CHAIR: Do they report to you or to whoever their act tells them?

Prof. Triggs : They do in fact report. The report comes through the commission processes but it ultimately is their responsibility to present it to the Attorney who then tables it in parliament. But in terms of their reporting lines—

CHAIR: So the Indigenous human rights commissioner reports through you to the Attorney-General not to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

Prof. Triggs : That is correct. It is rather hierarchical in that sense with a steep pinnacle, as it happens. The way in which it works in practice is very different. There is a statutory provision in our act that the commissioners must act in a collegiate way and they do. We meet formally every six weeks, et cetera, to agree on processes. But the ultimate responsibility and the ultimate director of all activities within the commission lie with the president. I honestly do not know whether that is exactly the case in relation to the Information Commissioner, but broadly it would be along similar lines, I imagine. To answer Senator Rhiannon's question, if you bring in a component of the current Office of the Information Commissioner, being the Privacy Commissioner, you bring that role in with the staff. Those staff will become staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission, but under this I must make sure that appropriate staff is available to the Privacy Commissioner to be able to carry out his functions.

CHAIR: Paid for by the Human Rights Commission?

Prof. Triggs : Paid for by the Human Rights Commission. So once that money comes in, even though it might come in different streams or in different lines, that money is Australian Human Rights Commission money and I, as president, am solely responsible for accounting for those funds.

CHAIR: But you are required under this legislation to make adequate, sufficient, plenty of staff—

Prof. Triggs : I forget the words—as is necessary. It is quite a broad term and we can live with that.

CHAIR: And that staff would report to and take orders from?

Prof. Triggs : From the Privacy Commissioner insofar as their work was related to the functions of the Privacy Commissioner and that would will be quite consistent with the way the staff operate in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, children and so on. They are not big teams; they are small but the principle is the same. I would never interfere, as a practical matter, with directions by those commissioners to the immediate staff they are working with, although I have to say, if I may interpose, that we now have a policy in the commission, driven in part by budgetary concerns, that we do not give significant staff to the commissioners but we work on a cross-commission basis on cross-commission projects. So we do not have that model of a group of staff around a particular commissioner.

CHAIR: But if this bill is passed?

Prof. Triggs : If this bill is passed, we will continue to do what we are doing in the Australian Human Rights Commission but we will have this bubble in the middle of it where you have a Privacy Commissioner with staff I will allocate to him notionally, but the curious phenomenon under this bill is that those staff would not, under any circumstances, be accountable to the commission. That is simply unworkable because of the way in which the financial requirements are and in relation to all sorts of staffing matters and other legislation.

CHAIR: Once they are allocated, do they then only do the Privacy Commissioner's work or can they be seconded for other things if they have a few minutes spare?

Prof. Triggs : The way I believe it is envisaged is that the staff will be made available for the Privacy Commissioner but would not be available for other work. They would exist in that bubble; whereas, the commission operates so that if we have a major inquiry—for example, into children in detention—that team will now be split up because the inquiry is over and the team members will then move to other projects across the commission so that we can move adroitly across whatever the issues are and agreed projects are for the year or two, depending on our strategic plan. This leaves the Privacy Commissioner with a set staff who presumably would not be so readily moved.

CHAIR: Did I read somewhere that the government was going to make available additional funds, although they are unqualified at this stage. Is that right?

Prof. Triggs : Not that I am aware of. Addition funds for what?

CHAIR: Because you are taking on the work of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is within your commission.

Prof. Triggs : That is right. Some of the funds that would otherwise have gone to the information commission, a smaller amount of funds, as Senator Collins's question suggests, is coming to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which allows us to meet the main budgetary commitment but probably will not meet all of the requirements—

CHAIR: But you are getting some additional funds—

Prof. Triggs : Absolutely.

CHAIR: for the staff whom you will have to allocate to the Privacy Commissioner.

Prof. Triggs : Yes.

CHAIR: And who pays the Privacy Commissioner? Does that come out of your budget? Who pays you? Does that come out of your budget?

Prof. Triggs : Yes. It will all come out of our budget. So whatever comes into our budget will now have to cover the costs of the whole, including the new Privacy Commissioner and staff.

CHAIR: There has been no qualification yet on the dollars involved but has the government indicated that the figure will about cover the staff that should go to the Privacy Commissioner plus the Privacy Commissioner's remuneration?

Prof. Triggs : I will, if I may, pass that question to the executive director.

Ms Raman : The privacy Commissioner is probably the best person to answer that question. We were not consulted in the lead-up to their budget decision so I am not sure what numbers they used—whether they used the existing staff working for the Privacy Commissioner—or what formula they used to come up with the figures.

CHAIR: So that is a work in progress?

Ms Raman : Yes. We know what the figure is; I am just not sure if it adequately covers what the Privacy Commissioner—

Prof. Triggs : We are not sure it covers the full cost; that is the difficulty; we do not yet know. Frankly, the reality is that, if the Privacy Commissioner were to say, 'I need 50 members of staff to cover the following functions,' I may be forced to say, 'The moneys we have received to take account of these additional staff needs is not enough to cover that and you may have to manage on 40.' That is hypothetical, because I do not yet know the exact figures, but that is what it is looking like to me at the moment. And I am deeply concerned that the need to fund and manage the privacy bubble will detract from the already depleted budget of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

I want to make one point that has not yet been made clear in my broader answer, and that is that all of the six commissioners that I have just been describing are members of the commission and they work within the commission and within the governance structure of the commission. It is envisaged under this bill that the Privacy Commissioner will still be called a Privacy Commissioner but he will not be a commissioner within the commission. I do not know how I am going to explain this in the public arena. It is quite bizarre.

CHAIR: What's in a name?

Prof. Triggs : He will be a staff member and an official of the commission, but he will not be a commissioner of the commission. Maybe there is nothing in a name—and it may be something that only lawyers would be concerned about—but what it means in practice is that the Privacy Commissioner will never be part of the governance structure of the commission.

CHAIR: But then he does not do any commission work apart from privacy matters.

Prof. Triggs : Bet you could say of other commissioners that they do only children or that they do only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This applies across the—

CHAIR: This might be a model for them—be careful!

Prof. Triggs : But one that I would very strongly argue against because—

Ms Lindley : The purposes of the commissioner do, under these proposed amendments, come into the commission. So the Privacy Commissioner's functions become functions of the commission under this legislation. In fact the commission will be picking up all of those functions for the purposes of accounting and those sorts of things. We are taking on those additional functions as well.

Senator RHIANNON: So you have got to take on these additional functions when the commissioner comes in. Who is the commissioner accountable to—the director? Or is it not possible to answer that question?

Prof. Triggs : The commissioner is directly accountable to the Attorney.

Senator RHIANNON: But the other commissioners are accountable to the director?

Prof. Triggs : Yes, that is right.

Senator RHIANNON: So the difference is that the other commissioners, the six commissioners, are accountable to the director. If the bill goes through and we have a Privacy Commissioner in this new arrangement, they are accountable directly?

Prof. Triggs : That is right.

Senator RHIANNON: So is the relationship with your commission purely one of office space, money and staff—is it more a mechanical arrangement?

Prof. Triggs : That is what it looks like, which is why we have tried to be very neutral in this discussion. If the government decision is that, in reality, they want an independent agency for privacy law then we think it should be set up as an independent Privacy Commissioner. We will continue to offer corporate services, and I believe we do so on a very good best practice basis at the moment. But that is more transparent, it is more clear, and that is fine. We do not want to play an advocacy role in making that choice. What we are saying is that if this bill is to go forward so that the Privacy Commissioner comes into the commission it should be on the same basis as all other commissioners and we operate on exactly the same—

Senator RHIANNON: So it should be that model or properly independent.

Prof. Triggs : It should be one or the other, but at the moment the model does not work.

Senator RHIANNON: If we can just come to the legal aspects, which you detail in your submission. I was wondering if you could further explain this, because it seems so important. You say that these provisions will not work as a matter of law, and then further on you say that the bill fails to understand the legal obligations. Could you expand on what you meant by that and also the implications. It would appear that we will have a contradiction in the law. I think it would be useful for us to understand what that means.

Ms Lindley : Under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act—the PGPA Act—Gillian as president is the accountable authority. She is responsible, as she has already indicated, for all of the obligations under that act, for ensuring that the commission is run ethically, efficiently—there are a couple of other Es in there. But also she is required to set up an audit committee. So there would have to be an audit committee set up in relation to or including those functions of the Privacy Commissioner. There would have to be a corporate plan done for the functions of the Privacy Commissioner. We would have to report on performance in relation to the corporate plan. Those obligations appear, as I said, under the PGPA Act.

At the moment the EM is attempting to say that the commissioner is separate and independent. In fact, he is not independent. He is an official of the commission, as we have already said. The functions come in under the legislation and the commission money is also available. So it is not possible for him to be independent in that sense, although he can maintain his independence in relation to the functions. So on the face of the legislation, asked the president has already indicated, the commission is responsible for those functions, but in fact it is not going to be possible for her to exercise those in relation to the staff that are given to him.

Senator RHIANNON: So what happens? If the bill goes through and you are then faced with this situation where it seems as though there is a conflict in the law under which you operate, what do you do?

Prof. Triggs : We have given an assurance to the Attorney that, in good faith, we will do our best to make this work. Some of the technical questions of reporting, financial accountability and so on can be worked out in the future with goodwill and good faith, and I believe from talking to the Privacy Commissioner we can do that. We will have to make the best of it, but it will be very messy legally and it will require quite a bit of amendment over the coming months to make this work.

Senator RHIANNON: When you say 'amendment', what do you mean?

Prof. Triggs : It will probably have to be pulled apart. It cannot work as a bubble within the commission. It really is not going to work.

Senator RHIANNON: So you mean sooner or later the Attorney-General might realise it is a mistake and bring back the legislation?

Prof. Triggs : Sooner or later. I am supposing here, but I think Finance were probably demanding some efficiencies and we will say we cannot give effect to those efficiencies unless we break down that bubble and we are able to ensure that we integrate the privacy work into the work of the commission as a whole so we have a single technology group, a single legal adviser and so on. I think those are going to be the pressures very, very soon.

Senator RHIANNON: So finance and staffing—that is where you will have these two very challenging areas to manage.

Prof. Triggs : They are the primary areas of concern. If you work under the radar, you can usually make things work, but the moment somebody asks technical legal questions or asks about financial matters then we will find that things will start to slip. It is going to be rather embarrassing to explain how all this is actually working in practice.

Senator RHIANNON: If it goes through we might have some interesting estimates.

Prof. Triggs : That is my fear. I live in fear of what Senate estimates is going to do.

Senator RHIANNON: I hope it is not fear.

Prof. Triggs : No, I enjoy the challenge. But I think you can understand that it is not going to take very long for people to start asking questions about where that money is going, what efficiencies have been achieved, what the outcomes are of bringing this work into the commission and whether this is the best way of achieving outcomes in the public interest.

Senator RHIANNON: In terms of the public interest, here we are talking about privacy. Have you given any consideration to the implications for privacy of this change?

Prof. Triggs : We are very pleased to have privacy back in the Australian Human Rights Commission. It was with the commission. It is a core human right and it is one that is raised frequently, particularly in the context of anti-terrorist legislation, for example. But the public is increasingly concerned about privacy and we see privacy as a very significant human right, and we are very pleased to have it back in the commission were the bill to be passed.

Senator RHIANNON: When you spoke with the Attorney-General and the department, was any reason given as to why it did not go back to how it was before—why they came up this bubble way of organising things?

Prof. Triggs : I am not sure that the Attorney put it in those terms, but I believe his advisers did. That is to say, essentially, they wanted to achieve the objective of eliminating one agency by bringing a part of it into our agency, but to do it in a way that left the Privacy Commissioner independent of the commission. So the objective was to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner had a high level of autonomy and independence, as he would have done had he been part of the Office of the Information Commissioner, which is to be discontinued.

CHAIR: Regarding your comments on staffing and budgets, you would not be the only person in Canberra concerned about cuts to staffing. Government has clearly made a decision that money has to be saved from everywhere. Do you feel in your case it has been more than the general Public Service cutbacks—and this is perhaps a subjective question?

Prof. Triggs : No, I would not say that at all. Without severely jeopardising my future position, I think that we have been treated fairly and well. I do not have any concerns that we have been treated in any way different from other agencies and I think that we have survived.

CHAIR: The point I am making is that many departments at the moment would be saying exactly what you are saying: how can we do the same amount of work with less money or fewer staff?

Prof. Triggs : With respect, that is not at all what I am saying. We accept the budget cuts and we have had in play for at least the last 18 months very serious efforts to be prepared for budget cuts we knew were coming. I am not at all concerned about that. What I am saying is that if we have a commission that has a bubble in it that is preserved for one function, the only way we are going to survive is by drawing funds from the other functions. It is not an appropriate way to run a commission.

CHAIR: Accepting the government's desire, rightly or wrongly, to do away with one layer, do you have any other suggestions how the Privacy Commissioner could still do his work and still get the results that are expected without being in your commission?

Prof. Triggs : The very clear answer, I believe, is that the Privacy Commissioner be established as an independent statutory body with the funds and so on to achieve the objectives.

CHAIR: So it could be done with the same money?

Prof. Triggs : I cannot imagine why it would not. We would provide the corporate services as usual and it would be done on exactly the same basis. Obviously, it would be a smaller operation. It would not have the efficiencies of working within the Office of the Information Commissioner, but I would think that for that sum you could manage—and of course these are questions for Commissioner Pilgrim. This is the option that we have proposed that he simply be set up as an independent agency because that seems to be extremely important to the government. If that is the case then I think it is a transparent way of doing it and it is very clear what the budget is and what the responsibilities are.

CHAIR: Okay. For those from the department who are listening or those who are in the room, that is a question that we will put to you. There being no further questions, thank you to you, Professor Triggs, and your staff for your contribution.

Prof. Triggs : Thank you.