Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our three presenters, it was very interesting. As the weeks go by, we are becoming real... no, that is an exaggeration: we are beginning to understand a little about constitutional law.
When he appeared before the committee, Professor Peter Hogg supported the government's contention—it was the government house leader who came here to introduce the bill—that the optional nature of the Prime Minister's choice vis-à-vis the consultation on the senators means that the Constitution is not affected.
All three of you can answer, it will be interesting. Is the optional nature the key in constitutional terms? Has the government not sought to do indirectly what, constitutionally, it cannot do directly? I would also like you to revisit the matter of constitutional conventions in this context. Are we in the process of creating an elected Senate by any other name, as some of you mentioned in your presentations?