So are they justified? The argument we've heard from some submitters—and the Opposition have picked up and run a mile with it—is that New Zealand already has electoral mechanisms to hold politicians to account for breaking their electoral mandate, and that the size of the problem that the waka-jumping provisions are addressing is small; maybe it doesn't exist? That analysis mischaracterises what the problem is, and I'll come back to that. But the argument continues. They said that New Zealand already has effective political sanctions that do everything the waka-jumping provisions do. It says that political imperatives, electoral judgments, and media scrutiny are the best tools we have for regulating the views of politicians and ensuring they're accountable. I don't agree with those submitters. Without the waka-jumping provisions, some MPs have a disproportionately large platform with which to express themselves. It serves no one but the MP personally, and it definitely does not serve the voters who elect them.