I thought it would be worth reminding the House that the Independent Children's Monitor has actually already published four reports on its website, including its first full report on agency compliance with all the national care standards and related matters and regulations earlier this year. Before there was progress reported last night on this debate, Jan Logie discussed a report from public policy analysts which she brought up to support an argument that she had regarding her thoughts that we didn't need to separate the monitoring and advocacy functions in the Oranga Tamariki system, and her concern that the different parts of the systems could inform and learn from each other and prevent—and Jan Logie had numerous points throughout the debate in relation to the separation of the monitoring and advocacy. I just want to point out that the redress report that has been received from the royal commission actually stated that they supported the separation of those functions to ensure that the monitoring could be done in a robust way. That is why the bill clearly sets out and separates the functions of each entity in the system to make it as simple as possible also for our tamariki and rangatahi, and avoid the trade-offs between advocacy and monitoring that may happen if they are performed by the same entity. This separation does not mean that no one will be working together or learning from each other; in fact, our Supplementary Order Paper further clarifies in clause 9 our expectation that the entities work more closely together than ever before. 