Because, you know what, there are some things that it is right to legislate about and there are some things that it is the role of this House to determine, and there are some things that it is the role of the political party to determine, and that's exactly the balance that this bill has struck. We know that Parliament has an absolute prerogative to determine its own procedure, so to eject someone from the House is absolutely the role of the Speaker and never should that kind of conduct and that kind of decision making be examined outside of this House. That is an ancient privilege of this House, and long shall it remain. But who is a member of this House? Who is qualified to come and take the oath at this table? That is very much a question for legislation, and that is part of what this bill does. It says a person who has been put on a party list by a political party and by dint of the number of votes that that party gets is qualified to come and stand at that table and take the Oath of Allegiance as a member of this House. If they then turn their back on the very party that qualified them to stand there, then it is quite appropriate for that party—in the right circumstances, if it decides it's the right thing to do—to take that privilege away from them. It is the place of this House, which has exclusive cognisance over its own procedures, to take note of what the party leader says, and that the party leader has followed the right procedures, has gone to that member and said, "These are the consequences of your actions, not only your historical actions but also the actions in the future—that if you continue to behave in the way you have, the party will see you as disrupting the proportionality of the House, and the consequences of that are that you can be removed at your peril."