So this is not, in my opinion, good legislation. If it was a Government bill, then it would be the sort of thing that you would have the whole system of Government working on. There would be a consideration of the Tāmati Coffey position, which is that this is precedent setting, it's just the beginning, and there's a whole lot more to come. The legislation that would flow from it would probably be schedule-based to enable such a thing. We probably wouldn't vote for that either. But the point is this Government won't do it either. So the question becomes should we support legislation that is almost hobby horse in its construction. Or should we take the appropriate ground, as Paul Goldsmith so eloquently put it before and say, "Look, in a democracy"—and Paul Eagle made the same point, in actual fact—"an elected body can make any appointments it wants." It can delegate certain responsibilities to those bodies. So in that case, why would we start to weaken the supremacy of the elected body? And that is what this bill sets out to do and is the reason why we are not supporting it.