CHRIS PENK: —as mischief indeed, Mr O'Connor, and so it's difficult to escape the conclusion that there's a possibility of convenience being applied to the subject of law reform, and that's pretty unattractive in any sense but certainly in the realm of electoral law. It's a matter potentially of conflict of interest, and any time in this House that we're considering electoral law, there's a possibility—or, indeed, inevitability—that we are judges in our own courts, so those are instances where we need to be particularly careful to be above board, to be consultative, collaborative, and it's not merely enough to write to the Opposition and announce that a panel is being set up, to seek the input, not necessarily to pay regard to such input, and to proceed with a programme of so-called reform and then, outside that, to push through other changes in a quicker fashion than that. We think that's not the right way to approach our constitution and these matters that are important not only for political parties but actually, more to the point, for everyday Kiwis. It's to them that the political system belongs in a democracy. It is to the people that the system belongs, and so we must never forget that in this House when we talk about the rights, the responsibilities, the interests of political parties. It's not only incumbent parties or those that wish to come in here—and acknowledging that bias towards incumbency that any system one would design of taxpayer funding would have—but to the people of New Zealand that we must consider.