DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I thought I should take a call on this motion as someone who has had a bit of experience of the issue and some time to reflect on it. I spent longer than most as the sole member of a political party in this House and felt the specified party provisions keenly, and what they meant was that I was sometimes excluded from debate, but often was very grateful to the generosity and public spiritedness, I guess, of fellow members of the House who did allow me to participate in debates, such as the current Leader of the House, who was also then the Leader of the House and allowed me, as ACT leader, to participate in ministerial statements. But there were two competing principles that had to be weighed and, I think, were well balanced in those circumstances—that are not being well balanced by this motion. Those principles were that, while the Standing Orders—I think it's 107(a)—do say that each party should be represented in each debate where possible, it's also critical to maintain the principle of proportionality in the way that New Zealanders who vote are spoken for or represented in this House.