I might also just suggest that the dichotomy suggested between interest and expertise is potentially a bit of a false one. There are people who can be experts and also be interested and come from different spaces. There's no reason someone from labour couldn't be an expert. There's no reason someone who's come from industry couldn't also be an expert and so on and so forth—just to put that in place.
This is the concern that comes into play. I'm not quite sure if there is a mechanism here that really allows for the alignment of whatever decarbonization strategies are developed by the advisory board with the business community that can essentially execute on those strategies.
There are two points there. To be able to execute on the strategy, we need to make sure the strategy itself is granular enough and is couched where businesses are actually situated, where the opportunities lie. What can actually be achieved? That's the recurring concern that we have: There needs to be some way to ensure that any decarbonization strategies that are developed are developed with a view for public health, with a view for social inclusion and with a view for workers' rights, as well as in consultation with industry, which is going to have to carry this forward.
I would just go back to that point. If you want to get to that level of granularity, you really need to have some type of mechanism that ensures that the advisory board goes through a very rigorous consultation process or that industries are, in fact, represented on the advisory council. If, potentially, each decarbonization strategy group becomes its own miniature committee, I'm not sure exactly what the mechanism might look like, but currently it's not there.