I'm looking at your draft right now. I'm pointing out the reasons we're not in favour of the proposals here in paragraphs 9(4)(b) and 9(4)(c) around the likelihood of adequacy, which is (b), and the adequate consideration of principles, which is your (c). The reason we're not in favour of the first one is that it's just way too broad, and it really creates an unwieldy role for the commissioner.
As regards the consideration of the principles, we heard from her on this yesterday. She doesn't require that to be built into legislation. The commissioner will be able to do that anyway.
The key thing here is to really focus the role of the commissioner, and that's why we're focusing on timeboundness and measurability.