Maybe before I answer that directly, I would say that we looked closely at the Australian situation when we were designing this bill, because we thought it was very instructive of the way a system could work. They are on the Westminster system. Their traditions are very similar to ours. Their legislation has worked very effectively over a number of years. They've had it for a very long time in Australia, so we looked closely at their rules, and to the extent we could, we actually followed them as a model.
We did differ in a number of instances here, though, in this bill and precisely in the ways that you're suggesting. The emphasis in Australia is very strongly oriented towards the party. As you mentioned, there's an option on the ballot in Australia, so that instead of making your selections of one, two, three, or however many candidates you want to select, you can simply tick off the box that says you vote for this party, and then the party determines the order of the candidates that they would like to see.
There was a conscious policy decision taken by the government here that that wouldn't be the case here, again in keeping with the desire to try to diminish the influence of parties in the process and make sure the Senate retained a degree of independence from what's happening on the Commons side, on the lower house side.
So this bill does not contain provisions comparable to those found in the Australian model.