Yes, I would imagine that would have some effect on the willingness of some people to seek election, or of their families to want them to be involved in it. At question time, certainly, it's very loud and confrontational, and much more so from members in the chamber than for people who can hear a broadcast of it because only one microphone is live from the broadcast. But when you're in the room, I know from my own experience, it's very loud and there's quite a lot of calling back and forth across the chamber.
I think the sense would be that would have some effect here, that members do need to be quite thick-skinned, and I think parties would generally agree with that.
The Green Party, which only has list MPs, has a policy of having 50% male and 50% female membership on their list, so they alternate. They do have a gender-balanced party in the House. No other party of a larger size does have that, and I think the total representation of women at the moment is around 33%, 34%. It has stayed that way for quite a long time, and I suppose the feeling members have had is that the party list is the way to address that, that parties wanting to appeal to the widest possible electorate will ensure that all voters are well represented on the list. I don't think that has been a reality, though, because while it may be true in theory, if you elect people who are actually willing to put themselves forward and you think are good candidates, then that theory probably isn't going to achieve the results you might want.