I thought I had explained it in my statement but the purpose of the policy is one, to protect, if you want, the interest of government to ensure that there is a level of fairness with former employees, whether they be deputy ministers or senior officers, et cetera, to tread very carefully between the collective rights and individual rights.
My point about the economy and the government, we all know the government has a huge impact on everybody's business across the territories and we need to ensure the policy protects the individual rights of deputies and senior officers who may come back to work for the government. It protects the collective rights of the government and the public purse, if you want, to ensure that individuals are not using, I think the term was undue, what was the term I used, I cannot remember, undue influence, if you want, or using the knowledge they have gained while in government to exploit government contracts. I have said that the policy and the criteria were done in 1986. It clearly, because of this issue, I suspect maybe we should have looked at it earlier, but because of this issue we have to re-address it, that is what I intend to do.
In summary, I think, it is there, I believe it is there to protect the interests of everyone. To protect the interests of the collective, protect the interests of the individual and to ensure that everybody gets a fair hearing, and the government gets value for money. I think, at the end of the day, the approach we have taken, the criteria we have set, is a valid one. It has been since 1986, but we are prepared to re-examine it, given the current controversy and concerns that has been raised.