I do want to acknowledge the select committee process, the 19 submissions, and the seven individuals and organisations that we heard from. Yes, there were more submissions in support of the bill than those opposed to it. But I do want to just touch on one point, which was stressed by many submitters, and there was a lot of discussion about it. It is the perceived impact that the current legislation, the one that this bill seeks to repeal, has on the rights of freedom of speech and association. Some submitters, according to the report, argued that the current electoral provisions could limit MPs' rights to freedom of speech and association and are unjustified. However, I do note that the Attorney-General, who examined the consistency of this bill against the Bill of Rights Act, said he did not agree with the submitters. He argued that the limits on MPs' rights, or perceived limits on MPs' rights, imposed by the bill are justified. This is because of the importance of the bill's objectives and because the capacity to remove and replace the distorting MP is the minimum necessary to achieve these objectives. So we were debating this across the House, and I was thinking: should one individual's right to freedom of speech compromise the millions of voters who determined the proportionality of Parliament? I just can't see how that specific right should be able to override something as important as the proportionality of our Parliament as determined at the last election.