We have important powers in terms of the ability to obtain information from the departments as part of our investigations, so we can do that, but the power that we lack is the power to issue a binding order at the end of the investigation when we make a finding. If we make a finding that the legislation was not complied with, we make a recommendation rather than an order, so that's the critical difference.
There are also some who argue for there to be financial consequences—fines and so on—and that's something that's being proposed in the private sector legislation that's currently being debated in committee.
However, for the public sector, at a minimum, having this order-making power would, in my view, make the process more expeditious, because you would have the investigation by my office, by the regulator, and then you get a decision, and then that decision is binding. Instead of having the individual have to go to court and take those steps, that order applies, and then it would be up to the department to challenge that order in a court process.