Fair enough. I appreciate that.
The next point is this. You said that if the commissioner does not.... I'm going to go to another question, because I'm really short on time; because I want the answer to this one instead.
If somebody doesn't like the answer the commissioner makes, the only course of action left is to go on judicial review. That seems strange to me. My background is the labour movement, so I have dealt with these things in my younger life, and it seems strange to me that you go from one person to a body and back to a person.
Normally, when you have a body such as yours, it's to ensure that there isn't too much power vested in one place, and so the process would be reversed: the commissioner would make a ruling; there would be a determination of whether or not there would be an appeal; and if there were, it would go to your body, and then your body's decision would be the binding decision. Instead, it seems to go from the commissioner, for no particular reason, then to your board, then back again to the commissioner. Then, from there, you have to leap all the way to the courts.
Is that correct? Does that make sense to you?