Yes, I do. I have a comment to make in relation to both questions.
As far as a mechanism to break through any potential gridlock is concerned, I believe that, for the time being, the only mechanism we have is cited in section 26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, and that is for the Prime Minister to potentially appoint up to eight additional senators. In order to exercise this authority, would he use senators on the list, or would he proceed in a traditional manner? I don't know the answer to this. And it is indeed an important question.
I'm aware of some of the details surrounding the crisis in Australia in the 1970s. Despite the fact that there was a mechanism in place for such deadlocks, Australia experienced a serious constitutional crisis. Clearly, proceeding with the consultative election of senators without thinking further about a mechanism to break through a gridlock poses an additional problem, in my opinion.
I obviously have a lot of respect for Professor Hogg, and I have learned a lot from his books. I have a broad understanding of the arguments he gave in his testimony, and it is my sense that he has opted for an extremely strict interpretation of the exclusion of the federal Parliament's authority based on paragraph 42(1)(b) of the Constitution Act of 1982. In my opinion, as far as the senator selection process is concerned, the act has a far broader scope than simply the power of the Governor General to summon an individual to the Senate, which is provided for in section 24 of the Constitution Act of 1867. I think that the 1980 reference clarifies this text, which is already clear. It makes it evident that the intention was to remove from the federal Parliament's jurisdiction far more than any simple technical amendment to section 24. The context clearly demonstrates, in my opinion, that the drafters' intention went beyond that, and they intended to limit even further the federal Parliament's jurisdiction in such matters.