I want to initially ask questions to Mr. Williams, and possibly to Roberta or Patrick if there is time. But my colleague may have those as well.
First, and this may be hard, Mr. Williams, but I appreciate that as a professional and as an objective civil servant, you've given us a lot of the pros in terms of having the commissioner's role be independent of the Auditor General and the pros in terms of the advocacy role as well, or of extending it to that.
Can you think really hard about whether there are those who would say—and you probably won't agree with them, and I understand that perfectly—in the public debate in New Zealand, that these are some of the cons, some of the negatives, of having your role be independent of the Auditor General? And also, are there naysayers, if you will, who would also suggest that there is some downside or some con or negative in respect of having an advocacy role?
You might have to kind of think hard, because your bias would obviously state it in terms of the positives. But are there those who have raised these in the public arena? I may be asking the wrong person, but I'm going to try here and hope that, as an objective civil servant, you might offer some of those critiques by others, which you would, of course, dismiss.