Now, the question is, if the mandate starts to expand, it's expanded into employment under this law to focus on not just price stability but also to influence employment—that's OK. But it does seem to be extending further and further into climate change. So this bank has substantially increased its focus on climate change and a bunch of other issues that haven't traditionally been regarded as the core preserve of a Reserve Bank, which has been focused on price stability. I suppose the warning or the concern that I'd like to express is that the further a reserve bank goes away from a very narrow focus on price stability, the more it will start to draw into question the absoluteness of its independence as it goes into more areas where there's much more dispute. If you talk about climate change policy, for example, there is much more dispute—the Greens will have a very strong view, we'll have a strong view, and that's fine. That's appropriate. That's democratic. But it's not necessarily the appropriate preserve of an independent institution such as the Reserve Bank. So I'd signal that warning, and some of the extra funds that have been consumed by the Reserve Bank relate to these areas, such as climate change, which are not necessarily what people would ordinarily associate with the focus of the Reserve Bank. So I'd ask them to bear that in mind and also to focus on the expansion of the overall workforce in the bank.