Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be quick.
I think it's kind of sad, when we talk about respecting and disrespecting each other, that anyone who questions or disagrees with a particular point of view is seen as causing trouble. I have never seen it that way. I think there's room for disagreement around the table, and at the end of the day, we can come up with what we agree on. It should be done in a respectful manner, but disagreeing in itself is not necessarily disrespectful.
I wanted to ask a question, because I think the issue of democracy and democratic reform is obviously at the heart of what everybody is trying to talk about. I would suggest to you that when the majority of people said they wanted to see Senate reform, I think they meant they wanted to have a say in how senators get to where they are. I would think that most people would believe that this is an extraordinarily expensive way to find out what people think. To then have someone decide that they don't even like their choices, I think, is not democratic.
Second, it's very undemocratic to suggest that in order to run, you have to find $4 million. You're self-selecting a whole bunch of people who cannot run because they can't ever achieve that kind of money. So while I understand the need for reform, accept it, and understand that you don't want to go the whole route for constitutional change, I think there is a way of discussing how this can become more democratic.
To have people believe that the cost of going out and doing this is acceptable, they would have to know that it wasn't just, “Thank you very much, but I don't think I like any of these guys”. I know why they say you couldn't do that and that nobody would do that, but we have seen instances when this government has done things that we believe are undemocratic. For me, there's an issue of trust here, and there's an issue of actually being democratic.