So the issue that I want to touch on today is really just reflecting on the approach that the justice Minister has taken. Now, I have been in Parliament—now, this is my second term. I can recall many times that he stood up as the Opposition justice spokesman on this side of the House, and he was always the first to stand up and talk about the importance of appropriate process, of respecting convention, of ensuring that the way we approach the issues that are—everything that we debate in this House is, of course, some degree of seriousness and moment, but there are certain others that are more constitutional in nature and convention in nature that actually deserve considered reflection. The justice Minister, Andrew Little, would be the first, many times, to stand and hold the previous Government to a very high standard with respect to those principles, but here we have a bill that sits in his name where—as you've heard through the contributions from particularly the National Party side over the course of this whole debate, not just here in the third reading—he has, in my view, deliberately distorted that process and ridden roughshod over a process which we have always followed, where the Justice Committee reflects on the outcomes, on the learnings, and the opportunities to improve—