Senate Economics Legislation Committee, , 5:10:22 to 5:43:24
Officials address medium-term budget projections, fiscal strategy, and the impact of spending on bond yields.
Topics: Government spending, Infrastructure, Health
Speakers: Damien White, James Paterson, Hon Katy Gallagher, Dave Sharma, Hon Jane Hume, Lisa Darmanin, Philip Brown, Speaker 25
>> will make a start. Um the committee welcomes representatives from the Department of Treasury Fiscal Group. Um I will throw straight to Senator Paterson for questions.
>> Thank you very much, Chair. Um, good to see my friends from fiscal group. Um, I want to revisit the questioning you might have seen this morning to the secretary about the variation between PIO and myo in the medium-term. Um, can you help me on a dollar figure of that variation in the underlying cash
>> Senator, as sorry, Damian Mike deputy secretary fiscal group. uh as the secretary said this morning uh we consider the medium-term numbers and the longerterm numbers obviously IGRs is best done as a percent of GDP because as nominal numbers grow over time the comparison of uh those nominal numbers becomes uh less useful numbers 10 and 15 years into the future do not mean the same thing as numbers now that is the way we've shown those numbers uh in history whenever we've done any numbers past the forward estimate Senator
>> 2029 is not 10 or 15 years into the future.
>> Uh no, but the end of the forward estim end of the medium-term period is another about 10 or 12 years into the future Senator and uh even then I mean GDP grows by like 5 or 6% a year. It quickly becomes 20 30 40 50% bigger than it is now. And numbers that you have in nominal terms over those periods of time do not mean the same thing.
>> So are you saying that Treasury does not
in fact to do the calculation we need the numbers we cannot do a proportion of GDP unless we have a numerator and a denominator but we do not show them in the budget papers and we have not put them out in the public domain because of the reasons I've said.
>> Sure. Well, I'm still insisting that you tell me because I would like to know what it is and uh it not being your preference or your practice is not a valid reason for not answering. So what is the dollar figure?
>> He's answered your question.
>> No, he hasn't. He hasn't told me what
explained uh the approach Treasury takes. It has always been that way and he and they take that approach for the reasons that Mr. White has explained.
>> Yes. Thank you. Caveat acknowledged.
>> Like he's answered your question. It might not be to your satisfaction, Senator Paterson, but he has answered your question.
>> No, I'm sorry, Minister. When I ask for a number which Treasury knows but doesn't say, that is not answering.
>> You cannot order a particular answer. Senator Paterson, Treasury have answered the question.
>> Um, Mr. White, what is the number?
>> Uh, as I've said, Senator, we put the numbers in the public domain as the percent of GDP in a very transparent way. Uh, including, uh, putting numbers for GDP up on our website. It allows people to make calculations like are in the public domain, but we do not put them there like that as nominal dollars.
>> So, the public the figure we have in the public domain is 57 billion. And the reason why we have that figure is because those GDP figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 decimal point. So it's close, but it's probably not exactly what the number is. And I think it's in the public interest to know exactly what the number is. And you know what the number is, you have the number, and not being your usual practice or not your preference is not a valid reason to not answer a question.
>> Usual practice, it is not the practice.
>> Even even that is not a sufficient answer. Treasury has information. If it doesn't wish to provide that information, it would have to make a public interest immunity claim. And Minister, you know well that a public interest immunity claim that this is not the practice of Treasury is not going to The Senate would never accept that. So Mr. White, what is the number? You know
Senator, you're right. We have the numbers, but this is just not the way that it's been done. and we do not think that putting the numbers for nominal dollars in the public domain is the most helpful way of showing these things.
>> I appreciate that that's your view. I respect and understand that view. But your belief that it is not the most helpful way is not a valid reason for failing to answer a question in Senate estimates. You've admitted you know the number. I've asked you the number. You
No, he doesn't need to say he he can answer your questions in the way the witness chooses to. Senator Paterson,
>> no, Minister, the only acceptable grounds for refusing to answer a question is a public interest immunity claim. Are you is Treasury seriously making a public interest immunity claim over a number that it knows because it thinks it's not helpful?
Treasury reports the medium-term outlook in the graphs in the uh mid-year economic update. We've been through that this morning. That is the that is how Treasury explains their thinking on medium-term outlook.
>> Yes. And that's very interesting, but still not a valid reason for information Treasury holds being withheld from the public. So again, I will ask Mr. White, can you please tell me what the number
Uh Senator we have so when we do uh our numbers what we've put in the budget is in the in the forward estimates we show what has happened about the med what has happened to those numbers in very large amount of detail and we put those in nominal numbers and that shows that since last all budget and PIO the budgets improved by about eight or so billion over the forward estimates that were in the in the PIO in the myo sorry and about 15 or $16 billion in the FBO before that. Um in the medium term, we showed that it's about that the underlying cash balances are about 0.2% of GDP per year on average. So a relatively small amount. Um which as we talked about this morning is why we say that we think that this is broadly in line with the numbers. and yes, and people can go out and see what we put there. Um, but if you want the numbers, I will get Miss Brown to talk to you about the number.
>> Yes, please. Thank you, Miss Brown.
>> Um, see if I have the No. So, Philip Brown, First Assistant Secretary, Budget Policy Division. Um, the number is, uh, $54 billion.
>> Thank you, Miss Brown. Um, I'm not sure why. We just have to spend seven or eight minutes to finally acknowledge >> that the deterioration in the underlying cash balance in the medium-term is $54 billion. The $57 billion guesstimate was already out there in the media. We now learn it's $3 billion less, $54 billion. Minister, why was that whole charade
>> Senator Paterson. Well, I think you it's Treasury's been clear about the way they report and have including under your government the medium-term forecasts and that with based on the evidence I've heard today and from the secretary would have been their preference because they think it gives a better uh picture of their view of the medium-term outlook. Now, you want you are running, you know, your political arguments here uh and have chosen to have a different view to that. You've got the number. It's not the way Treasury prefer to explain uh their medium-term forecasts, but um you know, and I back Treasury on that. Um so there's a difference of of opinion.
>> Minister, this is information that Treasury holds, which it has no valid reason to refuse. And we just went through a charade of seven or eight minutes after going through a charade of 15 minutes this morning with the secretary. >> Senator O'Neal, this is that's completely out of order. Senator O'Neal, you don't have to call this morning
because it distorts.
>> Can I ask you to bring Senator O'Neal to
order from a 142 billion if you could appear?
>> Just let Senator Paterson finish his questions, please.
>> Billion, you would have been I know. I know the treasur's office is texting you asking you to jump in, run interference to protect the government. >> We've all been there. We've all been there, Senator. I know. I don't think
anyone's doing anything.
>> We've all been there. Like I've been a government backbenture in as well. I know what that's like. Um
>> well, thank you for sharing the wisdom with us, but you know, you're distorting the truth of what was reported this
morning. >> Get Senator Senator Michael, if you could just keep your opinions to yourself.
>> Thanks, Chair. I think what this shows is some for some strange reason, extreme sensitivity on behalf of the government about this figure. Anyway, we've got the number standard budget reporting
actually, Senator Paterson. That's what it's about.
to a different conclusion, but anyway, we've got the number now. 54 billion. >> Um, to what extent is that $54 billion figure made up of changes to revenue forecasts and what is extent is it made up to changes expenses forecasts.
>> Senator Senator, you can see we put the charts in the budget papers in the myo as uh the secretary was talking about this morning. So, charts 3.5 and 3.6. So in those charts you can see um that for receipts receipts start the medium-term roughly about the same level as in the PIO and they decline slightly below the PO line. So by the end of the medium-term on the receipt side receipts are lower than we assumed at PIO
>> by how much?
>> Uh I'll come to that in a second Senator. Um on the my on the payment side, you can see that in the first couple of years of the medium-term uh payments are a little bit higher or there's a bit of a gap between the PIO and the MHO ones with MHOS being a bit higher, but after the first couple of years, those two lines are very close together. So um so if we're talking about that so at the end of the at the end of the medium-term Senator uh receipts are2% of GDP below um what they were at PIO and [music] payments are the same level as they were at PIO.
>> That's the end point. That's the end
point.
>> What is the cumulative difference on both the payment side and the receipt
side? Uh so the cumulative difference is um so as I said at the beginning the the most part of the change between PIO and myo but by the end it's receipts over the full period payments are are a bit more than receipts.
>> Okay. Um what do you have it in dollar terms?
>> No I don't have it in percent of GDP terms.
>> Okay. Well can you can you estimate the the share? What is it? nice, >> you know, 6040 for example,
>> it's a bit over 50% for payments. Um, >> possibly a bit over 50%. Um, but not probably, I don't have the numbers, but it's probably not like >> 70%, right? So, somewhere in that a bit over 50% range
>> cuz I I asked the PBO uh on Monday and they said roughly 6040. Is that in the ballpark?
>> It might be in the ballpark, but I don't have the number, Senator, but is a bit over 50.
>> Okay. How can we get the the exact >> Um, how do we get the exact balance but of that share?
>> So, as I said, Senator, I well, I don't have the exact balance, but it is a bit over 50. Um, the PBO said 6040. That is probably going to be in the ballpark, but we don't have a number.
>> Can you take on notice to give me you. Um, to what extent are the changes in both revenue and uh, payments as a result of uh, variations in forecast and to what extent are they a result of policy changes?
>> So, as the secretary said this morning, Senator, we don't have that. I might just explain how we do the medium-term to explain why we don't have it. >> So, in the forward estimates, um, those numbers are done in a very detailed manner. basically spending program and revenue item by item and so people put in the exact numbers into finance system and they split changes between estimates updates between estimates variations and measures. We don't do it like that in the medium term. This is a much more aggregated method in the medium term. So what we effectively do is we group up I'll just use spending as an example. We group up spending into sort of into a smallest number of items. So for example in the health portfolio we have like five items right where there's like hundreds of actual spending programs and we take the total amount spent on that item in the last year of the forward estimates. So that number will include all the things that have happened over time all the measures all the estimates variations but say there's like 50 billion being spent on this item. We take the 50 billion and we then apply a growth rate through the medium term and that's a growth rate based on the sorts of things that we think will affect that in the medium term. So if it was if it was like a pension payment for example, we would take the number of people we think are on the pension and the indexation factors and just make that into a growth rate. So we don't have so basically because we take that aggregate at the end of the forward estimates just grow it by a growth rate. We don't have a measures versus estimates variations. It's just a total amount that we expect to go into the future.
>> Sure. But I asked the minister the other day in finance and she listed a couple of government programs that contributed to this including the health and hospitals agreement. So you must have that data and you must and finance said they provided you that data and you must have inputed into this calculation. Is that not right?
>> So so that is the general approach we take. We then know that there are some things that governments do or some things that happen that will not that will not fit well in that general approach of a standard growth rate. So for example, we've talked about the health and hospitals deal. We knew that was being done. The government provisioned for that. So when we know things like that that are substantial and we think will make a big difference uh that does not line up with our standard methodology, we make changes like that, Senator. So yes, we put in numbers for the health and hospitals deal. We put in some numbers for the defense Henderson precinct, but it's only big things like that that differ from from the standard methodology. And for the vast bulk of spending, we do not have a split between measures and variations.
>> Right. Okay. I don't know if you've got the chart that I provided the secretary. >> No, I have not. But you would know from the data that there's a particularly large the biggest divergence in the forwards is in the 2930 financial year. What's the reason for that?
>> So the main reasons for that senator are those two items that are on page 296 I think of the myo >> is it 296 it might be 294. 294 senator y >> where it says contingency reserve includes provisions to reflect the basically the expected increased contribution to the health and disability deal. uh and the government's commitment to 12 billion over the next decade for a defense precinct at Henderson. So they are the two main items. There are a few other things in there um around maybe and they make up the vast bulk and there's a few other things particularly like infrastructure and interest and GST to add a bit but those two things are the main items
>> but the health and hospitals agreement is not terminating in
>> No, that's I agree Senator is not terminating. >> So some of the items we have uh in the medium-term alumpy so defense and Henderson is a is a thing like that. So some of the infrastructure things are a bit lumpy and sometimes PDI can be a bit lumpy depending on when there are maturities and how we issue. So there are some lumpy things that fall out over time uh which means that that that gap closes back up as we go further through the medium term.
>> Okay. Um just to conclude I know the chair want to rotate the call in a second. Um you have said that the majority of the deterioration a slight majority a bit over 50% uh is due to uh the payment side not the receipt side. Yeah. What is the treasurer basing his public comments on when he says it's mostly receipts, not payments?
>> So, we think the treasurer was talking about the end point of the of the medium-term, senator, when uh if you sort of think through the medium-term, we have things changing, but by the end, payments have contributed basically zero to the change since PIFO. Receipts are the basically the entire change by the end of that period. And if you think of that as sort of the structural change that will go into the future, I think that's what he was.
>> That's an absurdity. That's the an end point at the end of the midyear. It's not midterm uh forecasts. It's not the cumulative effect.
>> Agreed, Senator. But it is the point where receipts are at the end point. Receipts are the difference between between what we had at PIO and what we
have at MIO. Well, that's a um very impressive uh effort [laughter] at um
indicator of what the structural change in the budget position has been, which is the point of those graphs. >> Minister, if we' done your your based on your election commitments, the budget would have deteriorated 142 billion over the medium term.
>> So, I don't know what that's I'm really
surprised about how worried you are about this, Senator Paterson. Are [laughter] you seriously saying that you wouldn't fund Henderson or hospitals?
>> No.
>> What's it going to be? Hospitals or Henderson?
>> I think a $54 billion deterioration is worthy of examination personally, particularly because it occurred in a
Henderson if you were in government or you're not doing hospital.
>> Minister, you know, this isn't the forum to ask me questions. Um,
>> well, are you even going to be the shadow finance minister by the end of the day? Unlikely.
>> That's a very nice try, Minister. I'm impressed you've waited for as long as now for that diversion, but it doesn't take you away from the error or
hospitals.
>> Do you accept that the treasur >> It is not your role to ask me questions. Do you accept that the treasurer got it wrong when he said the majority of the change is due to payments, not receipts, not payments?
>> The treasurer uh no, the treasurer's comments are entirely correct. Uh and >> that's not correct. That's your
political
to make your videos and have your little political point scoring and fight
amongst yourselves like we're working
genuinely on the defense and health systems of this country. So everyone
understands that as a basudget
were absolutely correct. >> Right. And if in if you disagree now that chart 3.5 uh and the way the medium uh term projections are being put including that it's at the end of the medium term that gives you the best assessment of the structural difference uh across the budget. Are you are you arguing that because it's not a position that you took when you were in government? It's a someone to take >> who's spending more time on the internals of their own political machine than actually caring about the future of this country. I think that's what we I think that's what we've seen today.
>> I think Minister, I'm demonstrating my interest in a budget and have been all day. Um, and you've demonstrated a reluctance to ad organizing how to count
to 26. How long does it take to get to
26? >> I understand we're embarrassed about the treasurer's mistake. I would be too.
>> The treasurer hasn't made a mistake. Stop. So you [laughter] you can run your polit Look, we get you're a political operative. You're running your political lines. The treasurer uh's comments are correct.
>> Uh yeah. Okay. Um thanks chair.
>> I have just a couple of follow-up questions on the same page of my info, which is page 58. There's a chart there around the annual growth in major payments. Uh down the bottom of that page, um and it shows the highest growth payments over the next 10 years. So age care isn't there. So I'm assuming that since the budget last year, age care has dropped down. The growth in age care has dropped down below nominal GDP and that's the reason why it's not on the graph. That's correct.
>> Yeah. On the next page, Senator, that age care is going to be 4.9 down from 5.2. Yes. And I think it's just dropped out of our list of fastest growing pages.
>> Right. Thank you. Um but it's been replaced now by child care subsidies which are projected to grow significantly faster than at the time of the election. So can you just tell me why that is the case?
>> So we have that explained on page 59 senator in the second last dot point of those dot points there that uh it reflects higher than estimated childcare use by families in the forward estimates and then as we said about the way we grow things if we have higher growth in the forward estimates that'll be a higher base right at the end and we will probably have higher growth into the well it'll start from a higher point and continue to be higher through the medium term because we will apply a growth
rate. So when you say higher than estimated child care used by families in the forward estimates, are you talking about more families using it? Are you talking about families using child care more often? Are you talking about families using the same amount of childare but it's more expensive? What what when you say more use, what do you
>> Possibly
>> they're using childare more hours um are being utilized, so more subsidy is being
paid. So is it more families using
>> well same hours is it >> that's a question that you should ask um uh DSS
growing area I'm just wondering whether there is any curiosity
>> around we don't have all the detail of that senator it would either be yeah the department responsible for it or finance would be the ones that have much more detail about the exact reason for that sentence
>> okay it
>> I think it um and let me check because I think there's something to do with fees
Thank you. Something to do with fees, the increase in fees.
>> Yeah. And that then puts pressure on uh the subsidy. >> Um but that is really a portfolio question for DSS.
>> Yes. All right. Well, if you could take on notice of finances, Treasury's would be >> excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. I think Senator Paterson has some more questions.
>> I do need to rotate. I understand. >> No, Senator. Thank you. Um I have some questions about uh changes in offbudget between PIO and myo as well. Um there is a net other uh line when summarizing the offbudget items.
>> Can you give us the page number?
>> I don't have the page number. I apologize.
>> It could be 71, Senator. Maybe I don't
know. >> Yeah, I think so. I apologize.
>> Do you want to tell me what the other numbers you have are and I can?
>> Um well, the total is 7.6 billion.
No, it's not.
>> 25 26 uh -124 26 27 32 294. Is that making sense? Adding up to 7632. >> Someone will text me the page number and tell you. I don't I've just got an extract here in front of me. >> 71.
>> Yep.
>> Net other B. It's the bottom line.
>> Yep. So, we have a different number, Senator. The net other.
>> Yeah. Uh we've got we I've got that table 71 >> doesn't align with those numbers.
>> Uh this is a change since PIO is my
>> Okay.
>> So you need PIO to then compare to this.
>> Sorry. That's >> change since PIO. Sorry.
>> Okay.
>> Um it it looks like $7.6 billion of offbudget expenditure has occurred between PIO and my EO. Um it's summarized as net other which there is a note which says includes amounts that cannot be itemized including commercial and confidence transactions and decisions taken but not yet announced. >> So can you confirm that that is right that's $7.6 billion of new off budget spending in that category. I
>> think we I mean
>> I don't
>> we don't I don't have
>> we don't have that we don't have the PIO to my EO comparison I don't think
>> thank you. If you could y >> Can can you tell me can you break down what those decisions are?
>> Uh, well, it will depend, senator, about whether they're the commercial and confidence ones and decisions taken but not announced because we can't break those down, but we can try our best to do whatever else is in the line.
>> Yeah. Can can you tell me what proportion are commercial and confidence and what proportion are decisions taken but not yet announced?
>> We can see what we can do, Senator. So there would have been well at PIO there would have been no decisions taken but not announced in the numbers. Um but what about we just take it on notice and we can we've got the gist of your question and we can see what we can do
>> So the government I think has publicly announced the $1.1 billion for critical minerals deal which is probably the 2425 um or the 2526 number.
>> Uh I'd be guessing Senator. So, I think
we need to take a proper look at those numbers and we'll see what we can get
you. >> Well, Could you do that? Thank you. On notice. Um, the 2627 financial year, I understand it's about $3.3 billion. Can you tell us anything about that?
>> I I think we're just going to have to take all these on notice, Senator. I don't think we have the answers here with us today.
>> Right. Um, and can you confirm whether about 3.8 billion of that over the forwards is for Housing Australia? Has there been a big injection for Housing Australia out in the next financial year to the tune of about $3 billion? >> Yes, there has. Or yes,
>> Housing Australia is a separate line item, Senator.
>> Yep. So, there's no it's not part of that net other.
>> Oh, okay. I don't Well, I'm not 100% certain, but I would have thought it more likely that Housing Australia stuff is in the Housing Australia line. >> I don't know if we have any better
>> Uh Luke Spear, assistant secretary um I think on the broad like just to confirm that your uh reconciliation uh is correct the 7.6 over the um over the Ford estimates in those particular years but to confirm um uh Mr. White uh we get those numbers from department of finance and is a long list of different things uh including a a range of commercial and confidence ones and so we'll have to check actually the breakdown we don't closely track that.
>> Okay. >> All right. I I I accept if you need to take that on notice and I look forward
>> Thank you. Uh Senator Chararma.
>> Thank you. Um Mr. White, I understand you met with some of the former or current employees of the Australian Office of Financial Management.
>> I did, Senator. Yes.
>> Were they current employees at the time you met them or former?
>> I'd rather not talk about the characteristics of the people I talked to. We provide as the Treasury Department uh if people from our portfolio agencies especially the smaller ones wish to come and talk to us about anything really um we think it's an important job that we can provide to provide a a method of doing that. Um especially in small agencies sometimes people might find it hard to find a person they might want to talk to. Um, I don't think it's in anyone's interest for me to talk about the sorts of people who came and talked to me or what they talked to me about.
>> No, what you've just said then makes perfect sense for current employees.
>> Very small workplace.
>> Yes. So, that makes perfect sense that there's these normal channels of engagement for current employees, but I was asking it also about former
employees. As I said, I don't think it makes uh I don't think I'd like to go to who I talked to or what I talked to about. They came and talked to me pretty much in confidence about the sorts of things they had to say. Um I think want to protect the ability of people to do that without having anything suggested about who they are.
>> Okay. I respect that. Um is is this when brought to your attention and the secretary's attention though that prompted the independent review that was
around the first time, now I can't quite be sure exactly, but it was probably around the first time that we had concerns put possibly so explicitly, Senator. >> Okay. um we had known um I've had this job since I don't know end of 2024 and I have known from that whole time that AOFM are doing a change program and um even through the beginning parts of that there have been uh I guess you know from my discussions with the AFM there's been some uh hints that various people you know may not be on board with that which shouldn't be necessarily unexpected, right? If you're doing a change program, not everyone necessarily agrees, but like I suspect that was the first time that they were given in this sort of uh way.
>> Okay. Just in terms of day-to-day treasury oversight, are you the responsible official?
>> So, um so uh Treasury has a whole a large number. I don't know exactly how many portfolio agencies live in the treasury portfolio. Um they are divided up amongst the deputies. So yes, I look after the AOFM because they are effectively linked into the fiscal fiscal side of what Treasury does. They raise the debt. I also look after the Comwalth Grants Commission. Uh my markets group colleagues have way more like apprenic and obviously revenue group have the HL and those sorts of things. So that's how it's done. So yes, so I have um oversight's kind of a maybe sounds a bit more formal than it is, but like the person who talks to these people and worries about what's going on there.
>> Okay. Have you had any um concerns about the ability of the agency to manage the government's debt load as a result of the significant and rapid organizational change and some of the concerns you've had exposed to you?
>> No, Senator. So, uh, as best I can tell, and I'm not a debt management expert, um, uh, in what we have seen over the last several months or maybe 6 months or even longer, um, the AOFM's ability to raise the debt that they require to fund our budget, um, seems to have been going well. um as part of as part of what we as Treasury do um the AOFM does um a a funding strategy and a liquidity strategy. So two different strategies and they are they are approved and ticked off by the secretary of the treasury. And so in the middle of last year or so um they present them to our secretary. Our secretary has an AFM advisory board of three or so I think it's three people um who are experts in in debt markets who provide us with who will provide our secretary with advice on whether they are sensible uh things that balance risks and costs and all the sorts of things you would like AOFM to do. They provided that advice which uh suggested that what AOFM were doing was a was a sensible thing and that we should approve it. So yeah, no there are no concerns with what they've been doing so
far. Okay. Um I was just one thing that struck me and this might not be related the price at which we're having to or the the rate at which we're having to price our debt to clear it on the market has gone up significantly um [snorts] in the last sort of seven or eight months by about 80 basis points and um a risk premium has opened up with compared to a US 10-year Treasury bond. So if you look at June last year, I think the risk premium was negative in Australian Treasury bond to a US Treasury bond by about five basis points. Um if you look at the most recent sale, I mean I think our weighted average yield for the 10-year Treasury bonds that went to market on the 4th of February were 4.91% and in the US um their last sale on the 15th of January was 4.173%. So is that a cause for concern because obviously this is a change to the um I mean the last few years at least um there was effectively no risk premium between US and Australian Treasury yields over on a 10-year Treasury bond.
>> So are you asking more generally, Senator, or is there are you asking about whether the AFM has anything to do with that?
>> Well, I guess I' I mean I've noticed that pattern. What's your explanation for it, I guess? And is is it anything to do with the RFM's functioning or is it
>> that was covered in the previous session under macro when um Dr. Grant went through >> the market response and how that factored in? Um
>> well I guess then my question is have has have the developments at the ARFM which have concerned you sufficiently to appoint an outside investigator or an independent review. Is there any concern that they might be having an impact upon
this? I I would not think so, Senator. I would think bond markets move because market participants think differently about um the economy and what their views are on uh how they're going to invest. Um from what we see, when the AFM issues bonds, they issue bonds basically at the interest rates that are prevailing in the market. There seems to be nothing happening there that suggests that people are making us pay more money than we would otherwise pay based on what we know the market rates are. We don't think the AFM is having any
>> Okay. Just in the interest of time, I'm happy to yield. Chair, thank you.
>> Thank you, Senator Canavan.