There were, in the initial go-around, in both instances. In the case of Australia, there were dissenting reports on that initial debate and the tabling of the first reports. There was concern that the parallel chamber would in some way diminish the pre-eminence of the main chamber. There was a sensitivity to that. In addition, there was a feeling that it would be inconsequential for audiences at home.
In all cases, the experience showed that early skepticism was essentially solved or dissipated over time, because of the values and some of the enhancements they made to the program. They added things like the constituency statements and having more of what we call “take-note debates”. The debating schedule in Westminster Hall is full. You basically apply to get your debate put on the agenda—either a 30-minute or a two-hour debate. You have to guarantee as the applicant that people from different caucuses will show up and participate. Those debates have been extremely relevant to the people at home. You'll know that take-note debates for us are a pretty rare occurrence. It's pretty much the domain of the usual channels in the main chamber.
Honestly, as we look at this, the opportunities for that parallel chamber to make that kind of a difference are certainly there.