Yes, my own view—and, again, it's not a partisan view, but just looking at the evolution of this—is that the act is an improvement on what came before it. The dynamic that you haven't mentioned, though, which is an interesting one for all of you around the table, is that it's not a static process. In other words, the public itself is growing in its expectations of accountability and transparency. I think it's fair to say that even what might have satisfied that balance in 2006 or 2007 needs to keep growing in order to keep pace. Growing doesn't mean just getting stricter or higher monetary penalties or more powers. Greater transparency, a greater sense of a commissioner who is in touch with the standards that are going to work, and also the standards the public is coming to expect are why this is evolving.
It's not like once you get the balance right you can then sit back and relax, because the public is only heading in one direction on this—expecting more and more transparency in more real time, and with greater expectation that ministers are going to be aware of all of this, or public officer holders, when they take on these roles.