It's interesting. Just to be fair-minded, in the past regime, most of the political parties were within the boundaries you are suggesting, with the exception of one significant party. I'm not going to name it, but the story goes that basically they didn't have to do any fundraising because that just covered everything they needed, and I would suspect that it starts to enter into the domain that you're suggesting is an unfair enrichment. This is what I meant by my first question.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is one party that benefits for a whole host of reasons, and yet it works fine on balance for everyone else. How do you go about trying to get a system that would be fair for everyone when the dynamic of one party is such that it's just going to be almost impossible? Do you kind of live with that?
I'm asking because, in my opinion, you could say that the regime we had federally before was fair-minded for most of the players—it struck that balance that you've talked of and most of us feel comfortable with—but not that one. You are never really going to find a regime that would bring that in in the same way just because of the dynamics of the party and the way they approached federalism.
Have you any further thoughts? Do you still live with it if you say that we have 80% of the players covered, and the 20% we'll just have to live with? Is there a mitigating factor I'm not thinking of? Could I just have your thoughts, sir?