The next argument is that this is absolutely an affront to democracy. It's closely aligned to the point that I've just made, but it's an affront to democracy because members of the public have a right to be heard and to make their submissions in a considered fashion. I mentioned that there is broad support for this bill—that is true—but there is not unanimous support for this bill in this House. We know from the fact that the ACT Party is opposed that there may well be members or supporters of the ACT Party who would wish to be heard on the bill—perhaps, more importantly, some of those constitutional experts who frequently appear before select committees to express their concerns on constitutional abuses or the constitutional implications of measures. They too have a right to be heard and should be given the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion. It is not reasonable to say to busy professional people, "Drop everything; do this in a hurry", just because the Government is out of control and it's lost all semblance of order and the ability to do things in a timely fashion. They shouldn't impose that on members of the public who have a legitimate interest. 