 Let's kick off this session of the ANU Crawford Leadership Forum. My name's Miranda Stewart. I'm a professor at the University of Melbourne Law School and honorary professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU. And I am really delighted to welcome you to this session on cross-national taxation and regulation in a digital world. Very pleased to have you joining us in the conversation and we've got a really fantastic panel and I can see from our participants some great participants as well for the session. So I hope that we can have a good discussion. Let you know that I'm speaking to you from Melbourne, from the traditional lands with the Warrantry people of the Kulin Nation and to pay my respects to Elders past and present and to welcome and thank any Elders who are representing other lands today. So let me briefly introduce our panelists and the topic. We have one virtual panelist today or presentation from Mattias Corman, Secretary General nowadays of the OECD, formerly Australian Minister for Finance and the leader of government in the Australian Senate. So we have a virtual message from Mattias Corman on I guess the OECD's current approach to these issues of taxation and regulation in the digital economy. Then we will turn to our panel. Bios of our panel members are in the program. I'm really pleased to say that we've got Sunita Bose, who's the Managing Director of the Digital Industry Group Inc., which is a non-profit peak body for parts of the tech industry advocating for thriving digital economy in Australia. Professor Robert Roynick, who is Director of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute here at Crawford School and a leading public policy economist with an increasing focus, I think, on public finance. And Rod Sims will be well known to the audience, I'm sure, as chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and currently paying attention to the regulation of digital businesses, among other things. My own focus is tax and transfer policy, especially in the global digital context. So just proceeding briefly to outline how we're going to conduct the session, we will go to Mattias Corman's video shortly. Then we will come back to our panel and each of our panel members will take about five minutes to introduce some aspects of their sort of their perspective on the topic before we do some sort of moderated Q&A and discussion through me with the panel and open it up to Q&A from the floor. So at this stage if I could ask our digital hosts to post the video from Mattias Corman. G'day from the OECD in Paris. The globalization and digitalization of our economy brings with it many benefits and opportunities for better living standards and a better quality of life. But it also comes with a wide range of disruptions and evolving associated challenges. And the responsibility for policy makers then is to ensure we can optimize the benefits while better managing some of the associated challenges, risks and disruptions. As an organization focused on developing better policies for better lives, our mission here at the OECD is to help governments ensure that everyone in our communities has the best possible opportunity to participate and to benefit from globalization and digitalization. From policies to ensure the necessary skills development to managing cyber security, privacy and competition issues to making sure the impact on the capacity of governments to raise revenue efficiently and equitably is effectively addressed. Governments around the world of course need to be able to raise the necessary revenue to fund the essential public services and supports they provide to their populations and which their populations rightly expect in a way that is efficient, least distorting and which is also fair and equitable. It's very important then that we ensure that large multinational digital businesses and all large businesses in fact pay their fair share of tax in the markets in which they operate and generate their profits. The combined effects of the globalization and the digitalization of our economies created distortions and inequities when it came to the capacity of governments to raise revenue in a way that was efficient and fair. Indeed, the current outdated rules have allowed too many large multinational to earn significant income in market jurisdictions around the world without having to pay any or only very little corporate income tax there. Invariably their local competitors remind of course liable to pay. Those inequities and distortions had to be addressed and ideally they had to be addressed in a multilaterally agreed way because in the absence of a consistent multilaterally agreed solution what we saw emerge was a proliferation of unilateral digital tax measures causing retaliatory measures and creating further pressures for our international trading system. The OECD has been very successful over the past decade in helping to secure a multilaterally agreed and globally fair and consistent approach to when it comes to the fight against buys erosion and profit shifting and generally in terms of fighting multinational tax avoidance. We have been able to build on that by recently securing agreement at the G20 Finance Minister's meeting in Venice in mid-July and among 133 out of 139 countries in the OECD G20 inclusive framework to historically significant reform of our international taxation arrangements. After years of intense negotiations those countries 133 out of 139 joined what is called the statement on a two pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy which was released on 1 July 2021. This new two pillar solution ensures that taxing rights on the profits from the largest multinational corporations including those large digital multinational corporations are more fairly distributed to market jurisdictions. It also sets multilaterally agreed limitations on tax competition for corporate income tax through measures that will ensure multinational spy a globally agreed effective minimum corporate tax right. It's a package of reform which does not eliminate tax competition as it shouldn't but it does set multilaterally agreed limitations on it. Going into a little bit more detail the pillar one of the international tax reform package aims to ensure a fairer distribution of profits and taxing rights among countries with respect to the largest multinational enterprises. For multinational enterprises with a turnover above 20 billion euro profitability above 10% and which are generating at least one million euro in revenue in a relevant jurisdiction. It commits members to alakite 20 to 30% of residual profit in excess of 10% of revenue to that jurisdiction. For jurisdictions with a GDP of less than 40 billion euro so smaller jurisdictions the one million euro revenue threshold reduces to 250,000 euro. A pillar two seeks to put a floor on tax competition on corporate income tax through the introduction of a global minimum corporate tax which countries can use to protect their tax basis. The 133 signatories to the statement agreed a global minimum tax right of at least 15% for multinational enterprises with more than 750 million euro in revenue. With a substance carve out of at least 5% of the carrying value of tangible assets and payroll. As I indicated pillar two of this reform package does not eliminate tax competition but it does set multilaterally agreed limitations on it. The agreement will bring much needed certainty and improve fairness generating additional tax revenue for market jurisdictions. Under pillar one taxing rights on more than 100 billion US of profit are expected to be reallocated to market jurisdictions each year. A pillar two's global minimum tax right ensuring that companies are not able to reduce their tax liability to zero or very little which introduces a tax right of at least 15% is estimated to generate around 150 billion dollars in new tax revenue globally per year that is US dollars. This two pillar solution contains a number of points on which inclusive framework members must still agree the final final details. The intention is to finalize that agreement in time for the G20 leaders summit in Rome at the end of October with an implementation plan to develop model legislation guidance and a multilateral treaty in 2022 with practical implementation from 2023 onwards. Further we've also worked to address challenges that arise in the regulation of competition to ensure everyone has the opportunity to participate and benefit in the digital economy. Competitive intensity has been declining especially in digital markets. Markups and concentration are also rising while new company creation has fallen. Without vigorous competition digital markets cannot realize their full potential for innovation, productivity growth and employment opportunities. Competition policy must adapt to remain effective especially against new forms of misconduct such as algorithmic collusion and abuse of market dominance as examples. The OECD is intensifying international cooperation between regulators to ensure competition law is effective. Competition authorities must have access to the right tools and expertise to assess digital markets. Competition laws may also need to adapt to conditions in digital markets for instance through interim measures that allow rapid responses to emerging problems. Regulation which seeks to anticipate and address emerging competition concerns may be needed as well although it is important to ensure this does not inadvertently worsen concentration or discourage new entry. Thirdly data in privacy. Data has become a new resource which is driving growth, innovation and structural change. Data driven firms grow faster than others and cross border data flows increasingly underpin global trade. With its heightened importance however issues of privacy, control and security cause a range of regulatory issues. Corporation is needed to share experiences and understand policy practices to fully capitalize on the potential of data in the global digital economy while ensuring trust. Data flows with trust is a very important priority for the OECD. A key priority of the OECD is to develop evidence and good practices on data and data governance. We are working to improve our understanding of data as well as implement international standards such as through our forthcoming recommendation on enhancing access to and sharing of data. In addition, the sparse technology governance landscape increases risks associated with new technologies. We must work to develop global policies that govern emerging technologies in a coordinated and multilateral way. We have made significant progress already on artificial intelligence with the OECD artificial intelligence principles. The first intergovernmental standard on artificial intelligence have been adopted by 46 countries so far and were the basis for the G20 artificial intelligence principles. We are also advancing our broader portfolio of digital policy work. This includes cyber security where we are developing new international standards on the digital security of products. This cooperation can be particularly effective while mature regulatory frameworks are not yet established. The forthcoming OECD recommendation for agile regulatory governance to harness innovation could act as a helpful framework for these discussions. It will set out how and when new technologies should be regulated rather than what the regulations for any specific technologies should be. The years ahead will require strong willingness and international cooperation to address these fast-evolving challenges so as to optimize economic growth and innovation. This will require more coordinated responses in the participation of both governments and other stakeholders. The OECD will remain at the forefront of these responses. I thank you again for inviting me to participate in your event today and I wish you a fruitful discussion. Thank you. Well, with those exhortations from the OECD, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mattias Common who took time out of his very busy schedule to prepare that specifically for us. So I would like to turn now to our panel. So just again, you've had that introduction from Mattias Common about the issues that we're addressing. You also have a framing papers for this session. There are actually three short papers. One addressing the tax issues. One from sort of more the digital technology and development perspective from Sanita Bose and one from Sims in terms of the sort of regulatory and competition aspects in particular. So in order here, what I wanted to say first, I suppose, is that of course Australians have benefited massively from the digital advances of the last three decades in connecting us to the world, in enhancing interconnectedness and as well as the economic impact of those changes. But what we're exploring here, I suppose, is the sort of the regulatory and fiscal sides of that and the engagement between those developments across industry and government. So we're going to start with Rod Sims who has been at the AEEC doing significant work on large digital companies, market power and competition. So Rod, I'll get you to lead off and I will be pretty strict about time. Can you tell us what you see are the main issues and your approach at the moment? Thanks. Thanks Miranda and thanks to the ANU for the opportunity and like you, it would be much better if this was being done in person. But the key point I'll make is that I think specific regulation of large digital platforms in Australia will happen. It's not a question of this, if it's a question of when and what form that will take. And as you say Miranda, the large digital platforms have brought enormous innovation and benefits that's really clear. But it's also, but two other things are clear. Firstly, they're now absolutely dominant in key sectors of our economy, either monopoly or duopoly. And this brings its own issues. Secondly, there's a huge number of allegations right across the world of anti competitive activity to maintain those duopoly or monopoly positions. Now it's worth remembering that the main digital platforms, and I'm thinking mainly perhaps Facebook and Google, they often describe themselves as benevolent organisations. Now every company does, of course, they've got a vision which is going to cure the world's problems. But of course these are profit maximising companies and that's what you want them to be. That's what you expect them to be and that's why they're trillion plus dollar companies. But they really have a desperate need to grow their profits. For example, if their profits were to stay at their current levels and not grow over time, then of course their share price would more than halve because the bulk of their share price is in future growth of earnings. So they have an enormous incentive to grow. Now there's a growing list of issues that we're seeing. In search, of course, Google has 95% of the market, which is pretty close to monopoly, of course, but they pay huge sums to maintain that position to Apple and other OEMs to be the default search engine. So they're paying to maintain that dominance. And of course the concern is we lose innovation in terms of the amount of privacy associated with search, whether you get more sponsored links and less organic links. In apps that's dominated by Google and Apple, we even increasingly using apps just watch TV, forget the aerial on the roof. They charge 30% fees for many of the apps. Many allege that's too high. There's also allegations of bias to favor their own apps rather than third party apps think Apple Music versus Spotify. Then you've got issues in advertising technology. Again, roughly not quite 30% fees taken out. A lot of allegations of self-preferencing. One example I always like to quote is many of the publishers tried to get better price outcomes by running their own auctions. But Google stopped them doing that because Google basically controls advertising technology. Facebook of course dominates social media. We've got a lot of problems of fake news and scams. And of course it's not really in Facebook's financial interest to completely wipe those out. We've got a lot of data issues, profiling issues. Data can be used to shape elections in our society basically. And last thing I'll mention briefly is just the number of acquisitions. Over the last 10 years, the main digital platforms have bought out about 430 companies and paid 150 million for them. And our merger laws are unable to do anything about that. Now we at the ACCC and competition regulators like us use three main tools to deal with these issues. One is monitoring and we at the ACCC have done a lot of that. Writing reports, shining a light on the issues, bringing exposure and that actually does help a lot. Secondly, enforcement of competition and consumer law and we've done a bit of that. And thirdly, ex-anti-regulation of platforms. And I guess the main and probably only example in Australia is the news media bargaining code. It's important to note two points. One is that a lot of overseas countries are regulating digital platforms. They're not relying on after the event competition laws. Germany and Korea have got laws in place. The UK and the AC have comprehensive laws out for comment. And of course, there's some bipartisan bills in the US Congress. Also, it's important to remember the second point. Australia already does have sector-specific, you know, ex-anti laws. It doesn't just rely on after the event competition and consumer laws. Banking sector, electricity sectors very heavily, some would say too heavily regulated. Perhaps the biggest parallel is in the telecommunications sector. Parts 11V and 11C of the Competition Consumer Act mean the ACCC can issue competition notices to stop certain activity happening. We can declare and then regulate services. So having ex-anti-regulation of digital platforms wouldn't be new. It would be dealing with the tech sector like we do with many other sectors. Now, just to conclude, we have the ACCC, a five-year monitoring inquiry, which was directed by the government. We've produced four or just about to produce four reports. The fifth one, which is due in September 2022, so it's going to dominate most of next year, is to look at the common problems we've been facing, see what solutions there may be, look at the question of ex-anti-regulation and look at the scope, specificity and form of that. That report will come out in September 2022. It will be by far the most important work the ACCC has done on digital platforms and those recommendations, whatever they may be, as I say, will then be passed to Treasury and the Treasurer and the government to take forward. So our job is to make the recommendations, it's others to decide what to do with them. So finally, I think regulation will occur for two reasons. One is the problems, the damage to innovation, the rent extraction, economic rent extraction or what other people call excessive pricing, limits on consumer choice, consumer data issues. But the other reason why it will happen is because it's happening overseas and Australia is already influencing what those other countries are doing. The ACCC is constantly in touch with our counterparts and other players in the market trying to influence the direction they're going and of course if we don't move, we'll be left behind and I don't think anyone will want that. So thanks Miranda. Back to you. Thanks very much Rod and I'm sure there will be questions and discussion and some of the themes that you've raised, themes of multilateralism, themes of looking at what's happening elsewhere in the world and themes of sort of concentration and rents and profit are going to be relevant also as we think about the taxation and other regulation issues. So before we come on to thinking about tax, I'd like to go to Sunita next. So Sunita, in your role as managing director of Digi2peak Body, you're looking at Australia's technological and digital opportunity and performance. You're also engaged in regulatory conversations, managing regulation and risk for the industry. So would you like to make a few first remarks about those things? Thank you. Sure. Thank you Miranda for the question and I'd also like to start by acknowledging the owners of the traditional lands in which we're all coming from. It's a shame that we're not all in the same place. I'm coming to you from Gadigal land. I want to thank ACCC chair Rod Sims for his remarks today and to the ANU for putting on this forum and also for arranging the remarks by OECD's Secretary General Matias Korman. It was great to start with that because I think an OECD vantage point when we look at Australia is really important in our digital opportunity. The Australian government has a goal that by 2030 it wants Australia to be a leading digitally enabled economy. And I think as we look to 2030, we're obviously in 2021 right now, we need to be aware that we're actually not starting that race to being a leading digitally enabled economy in the lead. Today we have the second smallest technology sector in the OECD, second only to Mexico. Having said that, we're not behind across the board. We're actually second best in the OECD when it comes to technology adoption in the workplace. And I think that's something that we're all seeing at the moment. You know, as you know, a whole lot of industries pivot to be online so that they can continue through these unprecedented challenges. So a big part of the government's digital economy strategy has been on adoption. And you know that experience of what was happening at the moment as we're seeing kind of a shift towards the use of digital technology. It's actually backed by data. You know, one of the things that Digi did in 2019 as we commissioned some research that looked at the economic impact of the technology sector and tried to quantify its impact. And so what we found was that actually today the technology sector itself contributes $122 billion a year to GDP in the economy. But what's interesting is of that $122 billion, $53 billion of which is actually supporting other sectors in the economy. So not just the tech sector, but other sectors such as construction and mining. And the way that that is calculated doesn't even include things like the productivity gains that the Secretary General mentioned. So again, to go back to that OECD vantage point, if we look at Australia's tech growth trajectory and we compare it to other countries in the OECD and their growth trajectory, ours has actually been, has fallen quite short of, you know, tech leading peers. And so, you know, if we look back at that goal that the government has set about being a leading digitally enabled economy by 2030, we need to look at how we change that growth rate. And I think that in order to change that, you know, we need to be ambitious about growing technology creation as well as adoption. And this is an area where Australia is actually towards the bottom of the OECD ladder in terms of the size of our tech sector, as I mentioned, and the size of our tech exports. So as we do that, I think I lay that context because I think it puts a lot of, you know, it's important context for how we look at the role of multinational enterprise in Australia and the ecosystem that they create when it comes to technology. And I think there's a few different dimensions to that. You know, at first obviously multinational technology companies directly employ people. I think I believe there's over half a million people that work in technology in Australia. And I think recent figures have actually updated that. The adoption of their networks creates employment. There was a recent economic study of YouTube that actually calculated, if you look at all of the people that work within a range of industries, creating video content to promote their services, there's actually about 16,000 full-time equivalent employees. You know, the other dimension to this is that their networks create an ease of trade within, you know, Australia but also internationally. You know, so many Australian companies are born global. You know, within two years they're exporting their services overseas. And I think, you know, the other part that is well known about Australia's technology sector that's well documented that many sort of start-up leaders and others have talked about is that we've got, you know, a skills challenge in this nation. And so over time, these high-skilled employees from multinational enterprise, you know, do go on to start homegrown Australian companies, you know, one of the co-founders of Canva, for example, is an ex-Google engineer. So, you know, over time we can create a thriving ecosystem where we've got small companies, where we've got large companies, where we've got business opportunities and mentorship opportunities and so much that comes from that. And it's not just about technology. You know, I lived in San Francisco for five years and what I loved about the place is not just the passion for technology in and of itself, but the passion for what technology can do and the whole range of social problems that it can solve and the way that it can enable efficiencies across a whole lot of industries. So, that's the vision. And none of that is to say that we don't face real challenges right now and that's something that, you know, in my work at Digi, I'm very focused upon. Fully realising that digital opportunity doesn't mean ignoring the risks because as our interactions, you know, move online, as our economy digitises, the policy challenges that we've experienced in a whole range of areas, be they online safety, privacy, competition, taxation, you know, they take on new dimensions when they move online. And so I'm very confident that we can maximise technology creation and adoption in Australia while also, you know, advancing important laws and initiatives that manage those challenges that, you know, these policy challenges that we're confronted with with, you know, when these challenges are moved online. And I think, you know, we'll dive into those in detail. So I don't want to take up too much time now, but I think at a high level, you know, how we strike that balance of realising our digital opportunity while also actively managing the risks is about, you know, having laws and policy solutions that are well targeted. It's about, you know, looking forward to the future and how technology is being applied and making sure that the solutions we come up with are future-proof. It's around ensuring that there's coordination across different government departments so that there's cohesion in the policy frameworks that are being put forward. But also just really close collaboration with industry in the design of these policies to make sure that those who are building the technology are in the room as we're developing the solutions for the challenges that we face. So I'm looking forward to diving into all of those with this panel today. Thanks very much, Sunita. And what you've brought in in particular, I guess, is that engagement not just from state to state, which is what we think of in multilateral contexts, which was presented by Matias Common, but also with industry and with the big players and then perhaps potentially also the small players in that sort of ideal ecosystem you describe. So we'll come back to also to some of those regulatory channels in the discussion, but just before we do that, I want to turn to Professor Bob Bruynik to discuss the tax issues. We've got the framing paper which sets out a sort of summary of some of those issues and we also heard from Matias Common about sort of the most recent developments in the inclusive framework and taxation of multinational enterprises, not just digital ones. I wanted to invite you to make some opening remarks about that and perhaps the bigger picture. Hi, Miranda. Thanks for chairing the session and thanks also to Rod and Sunita for their opening comments which I found very interesting. Yeah, tax. Tax is a policy area where bad ideas live forever, right? And I'm not quite sure why it is. I guess change is hard. If you want to change something, there's winners and losers. Tax is kind of technical. People often don't understand it and they don't understand the system. They don't know how to think about it. And so we get these bad taxes that last forever. I mean, people have probably heard of the window tax in the UK where we used to tax people on how big their windows were as a way to get at wealth. And this tax lasted over 100 years after people learned that it had really bad health implications because people were building houses without enough ventilation. Most of our listeners have probably heard of this tax called stamp duty but it's not that bad. It's not that bad. It really thinks it's bad but somehow we can't get rid of it and we're not able to change it. And so I guess the question I want people to maybe think about to begin with since you invited me to say something very overarching Miranda is corporate tax one of these bad taxes. Corporate tax made sense back in the day where companies were located in one country. They sold stuff to people in that country and you could tax the corporation as a way to kind of get it some of the holders of capital. But does it make sense in a globalized world? Now production happens through supply chains that happens in multiple countries around the world. The locus of production is no longer the locus of consumption. We know that corporate taxes have big deadweight losses. We know at least some of the corporate tax ends up getting shifted to workers and consumers. We know that corporate taxes are going to be based around after people who don't pay their corporate tax and corporations spend enormous amounts of resources avoiding it all. And so I think there's a way in which maybe the corporate tax is just a broken tax and so we end up with OECD kind of band-aid solutions. So now we're going to have this crazy pastiche where we kind of keep source-based taxation for the companies, but for some kinds of things we're going to have destination-based taxation, but certain things are going to be exempt from that depending upon the industry or depending upon the amount of money. And we're all going to have to get together and negotiate with 133 countries to have a treaty. And you know what that's going to look like. I mean, this sounds like a field day for lawyers, right? Which, Miranda, of course, this is great for your profession, but I guess that would be my overarching comment is that if we were to devise a tax system that we thought had the attributes that Matthias Corman mentioned of fairness, of equity, of efficiency, would we even have a corporate tax, right? I mean, there are lots of other ways that we could tax the wealth that's generated by corporations. Corporations just vehicles for producing stuff and they're owned by people. There are many different ways to tax the revenue and tax the income that comes from there. And I guess just as a final thing, what I would say is if, you know, I think there are some dangerous precedents in some of the things that people say for Australia that Australia should worry about. So, you know, Google earns a lot of money in Country X, but they don't pay any tax there. This isn't right. They should pay more tax there. Well, Australia sells a lot of iron order China and the iron order companies in Australia don't pay a lot of tax in China. They should be taxing our iron order companies more. So pretty soon we sound like we're in a world where this is a tariff. And I think, you know, I mean, it's good that the OECD BEPS process is trying to do something that's a little more organized because the original digital taxes essentially just look like tariffs. And we know the tariffs are bad idea and we know that getting rid of tariffs is one of the things that made Australia really wealthy. So there are some things here that take us down a road and the source-based taxation works good for us. If we were to switch to a completely destination-based taxation system, we'd be much poorer for it. So there is a bit of care that needs to be exercised as we think about these things for Australia. And as Matias Corman said, you know, this is still a glimmer in the eye and countries haven't actually agreed on it all yet. Thanks, Bob. So just stay with that for a minute for tax because you were so efficient as to time. The proposal that we had described, we got it in the framing paper and that Matias Corman briefly summarized, really is focused at the big end of town, sort of the big end of the globe, so to speak, literally probably the top 100 companies. Now that top 100 companies or corporate groups, you might say, multinational enterprises. So that top 100 does include many of the big tech companies that we're familiar with, but it's pretty diverse as well. It includes, you know, the biggest BMO center in the whole range of more traditional sectors, ranging from cars to retail products to pharmaceuticals to oil. So that proposal is, I guess aimed at this, as you say, layering or prestige of tax, but specifically stratifying it to focus on that very big end. And it does remind me in that way of some of the issues that Rod raises about competition and market power. It actually sort of in some ways is linked, although not directly, perhaps to this issue of size of market power of these organizations. So, I mean, is there something to be said for trying to establish a more global and harmonized system of capturing revenues at that big end of town and on that consumer basis? So are you seeing that as being completely a waste of time just to put that question to you? I mean, I guess the question is, are we talking about the ideal system I would design from scratch or am I talking about what is potentially useful from where we currently sit? I certainly think that these are things that you don't want to do unilaterally. The idea of 100 different countries each having their own digital services tax, is a nightmare. And that's why the US and the digital companies are both willing to actually talk about this process, right? Is to move away from the situation that Matias Corman described where the French are putting a digital service tax on US companies and the US is turning around and saying we're going to put a tariff on French champagne and French cheese. So definitely in terms of the threat to the global trading system, we're going to have this unified process. It's not at all clear to me. I really don't see any evidence that somehow taxing the richest, most successful companies is going to reduce their market power and is going to incentivize growth in other companies. In fact, you could probably run the opposite argument. If I know that when I get really big, I'm just going to go into this tax regime that's going to be more punitive than that's actually a disincentive to growth. And it flies in the face of what we think tax should be doing. We think tax should be simple. We think it should be, we should apply equally to everybody. We shouldn't have different tax systems for different people. And there's a bit of a, sometimes in some of the media commentary, there's almost a bit of a kind of reverse Santa Claus thing going on where it's like, oh, you've been naughty, so we're going to tax you more. And I don't know when tax became a tool for kind of meeting the tax system this time. So we have come to the end of our time. Thank you for that question and thanks very much to my panel, Rod, Robert and Sunita. I wish everyone the best with the rest of the forum. I think we shut down automatically in a minute or two if we don't, you know, finish in a neat way now. So I'm going to take the privilege of the chair to do that. So thanks to everyone again for those really interesting issues. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.