Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We looked at overseas examples of where they had split monitoring and advocacy, and the rationales for that—also the redress report that came through from the royal commission that felt that it was really important to differentiate between the two, and to keep them separate. We had to make a determination, as a Cabinet, when given the different options. We absolutely agreed that the Monitor needed to have the level of independence that we have clearly articulated in the bill that we have in front of us. But we also thought, given our experience and sometimes the questions that we've had of Oranga Tamariki in general—and I know previous Governments and all parties in the House have—that we wanted the ability to be able to ask them to undertake work where we had concerns with the system. I think that that's a really important part of what we're able to do with the Monitor, with the way in which we'd set it up. If it had a higher level of independence, we would have no ability to even be able to ask them to do any additional work that may be reflective of the concerns that we might have. So we as a Cabinet—again, it's not in the bill—made that determination.