Thank you for the question. It's a very important one.
The act is structured on parliamentary accountability, which is as you described, sir.
I would suggest that the reports do carry a lot of weight, some more than others. Of course, some reports, for example, those by the Auditor General and the federal environment commissioner—speak by analog for now—have moderately critical findings. Others have extremely important and consequential findings.
The former are kind of good news, because they mean that things are going reasonably well. The latter can be quite problematic, and they tend to get a lot more oxygen over time and lead to results and changes in the departments.
I'm going to share only things in the public domain. For example, years ago I was involved in an audit on the offshore petroleum and energy boards on the east coast, soon after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. We made some very pointed, consequential findings, and, sure enough, changes happened, and it was a measurable result. I would expect to see the same in this context with the commissioner in place.
You point out that follow-up audits are possible, so that's a way to keep the issues on the front burner. There's really no limit to how those take place.
The last point I would make, in the interest of time, is that this falls into a different context from that of the Auditor General, who's a generalist. This commissioner would be a specialist and be in a better position to keep the pressure on. You'll see woven into the act a number of different ongoing ways to keep engaged with modern treaty holders and indigenous modern treaty partners. In this context, indigenous modern treaty partners will be able to help keep things on the front burner and keep pressure applied so that there are changes across departments in the interest of the whole-of-government approach that I mentioned in my second point.