I understand you to be asking whether the advisory body really should have legal status, which I think it absolutely should. It should have a clearer role in actually doing some of that evaluation of government progress on the bill, as is the case in the U.K. act.
The commissioner's role, as written, is on auditing essentially the implementation of the plan. Taken broadly, that's probably helpful, but the key question is not just “Are we implementing what we said we'd do?”, but “Are we achieving the results that are necessary to get where we need to go?” The commissioner could have an expanded role to do that, but we certainly have been pressing for the advisory body to play that role.