Thank you.
We've talked about something on the theoretical level that those of us who were elected in the 38th Parliament got to experience in reality, which is the question of what constitutes a confidence vote and what happens when there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a confidence vote.
I recall quite distinctly that in the spring of 2005 the government was defeated on something that we in opposition regarded as a confidence matter. They chose to regard it not as a confidence matter, and ultimately, after much delay on the part of the then government House leader, there was a confidence vote on a very clear question, which the government won. Subsequently, about 11 months ago, there was a further confidence vote, and a very clear confidence vote, which they lost. And that was the end of that.
To me, these things are not necessarily all that difficult to resolve, given that we've all lived through something within the past 18 months—and have gotten to live through it, actually, over and over again over a period of some time.
I want to come back to a question. This relates to Professor Heard's presentation at the very beginning of his testimony.
It struck me, Professor Heard, as you were talking—and you can correct me if I've misunderstood this—that what you were saying in so many words was that while this is a law, what it's doing in practice is moving toward the establishment of a new convention, and that as with all conventions, this will be regulated ultimately by public opinion. If the public is prepared to accept that an action has been taken by a government that causes an election to occur prior to the expiration of four years, and public opinion judges it to be legitimate, then effectively the convention is established that this is within the bounds of a reasonable early election call. If the public rejects that essentially, by punishing the government and replacing it with a new government, effectively that is a demonstration that a new line in the sand has been established by convention.
I'm not sure I've captured what you said correctly, but I am interested to know if you agree with the way I've just characterized it.