Given the discussion, my impression is that there's nothing in the scope of Ms. Blaney's motion that isn't covered by Mr. Turnbull's motion, and that the committee has agreement on that. If we propose to look at any of the elements that were mentioned in Ms. Blaney's motion as part of this study, nobody is going to be citing the terms of reference of Mr. Turnbull's motion as a reason why we wouldn't be looking at things in Ms. Blaney's motion.
I'm more concerned about getting the study started than I am about belabouring these details. I take the point that we want to get back to the House quickly on the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations. I still think we might be making too big a deal of that, frankly, because the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and our views of them are going to be superseded by the government's legislation. The government is the one that has to draft the legislation, and our opinions about what legislative changes should be made, or whether the Chief Electoral Officer has made good recommendations don't generate any legislative proposals in themselves.
At the end of the day, it's the government that's going to decide what legislation it wants to put to the House. I can do it in a PMB, and we can talk about this three years from now. It's the government that's going to decide ultimately what we're actually—