It was absolutely inevitable that be brought up and, therefore, it was inevitable that this bill would be brought up, provided that one assumes in the first instance that the Greens would be honouring their position that they've held throughout that all prisoners should be able to vote—tick—and that the National Party would maintain its consistency of position, which is to oppose anything that would make the passage of this bill into the law of the land, or, effectively, the law of the land—and I use that word deliberately—as at the next general election. So the Greens have acted consistent with their principles and we've acted consistent with our position throughout. The clue is in the words of the bill that is now before us, and every time that there is a distinction made—whether in explicit terms by the words or perhaps a cross-reference back to the Electoral Act—every time that the bill points out the difference between how prisoners are to be treated according to the length of time that they are incarcerated, every time we can see that there has been a lack of an internal consistency, logical consistency, not just in the bill but in the Government parties opposite. It's that inconsistency, that incoherence, and that disjunction between the parties of Government that has expressed itself in the bill that we have seen before us today.