I brought forward the original committee recommendation because I found it very interesting. It clearly recognizes that there is a difference between audit—which is the retrospective, which is what the Commissioner of the Environment has been doing so far—and that forward-looking analysis of plans in a proactive kind of role, which an audit office cannot fulfill.
I'm not quite sure how the New Zealand one works, but the U.K. commission is like an advisory body to government. It's not an independent audit office type of model like the one we have.