That's a complex question. But I think the point I would make is that we're 20 years old, and we've been operating under an act that amazes me in terms of its extent and breadth and powers. No Parliament in the 20 years has actually expressed concern, to the point of taking anything back into the chamber, about the work of the commission, under two commissioners. So we must have got something right in the sense of serving what the architects of this were really looking for.
I think the reason it's worked so well is that we've tended to focus very much on the forward-looking, on investigating the systems role, and on investigating the concerns of society, and less on the strict, what we would term, audit role.
Our audit office does, in fact, environmental audits. We work very closely with our audit office, and in fact, a member of my team, a senior member who's with me today, actually acts as an adviser when they're scoping their non-financial environmental orders. They clearly do that. We have no problem with overlap.
The point I'd make is that environmental sustainability is a systems process. It has deep connections with society and the economy as well as with environmental matters. There's no way we can empower many others in society unless we can actually work on a much broader canvas than the audit canvas gives us. That's not saying that the work of audit offices and the work that your federal office has done is not in fact top class; it is, absolutely. But to advance environmental sustainability, and sustainability in general, just needs a lot more scope.
