I will be very brief.
I don't know whether the interpreters will be able to get this right, but here's a challenge for them. My mom always used to say, “don't bite off more than you can chew.”
I was convinced that the purpose of Mr. Blaikie's motion was to further study the electoral process as a whole. Mr. Turnbull's amendment would expand the study to democratic practices within the parliamentary process.
However, I believe that we should limit ourselves to the electoral process. People are asking themselves questions, and we should be too. We've heard people talk about the need to change the electoral system to proportional representation, because some parties are over‑represented, and others under‑represented.
I don't have the same background as Mr. Turnbull and I am not an expert on the matter. I am but a mere economist. However, my constituents often talk to me about the need to adopt proportional representation. Doing so would allow parties that are disadvantaged by the current electoral system to be better represented and better equipped to speak on behalf of people, who deserve it.
I will stop here. I don't believe that Mr. Turnbull's amendment would be beneficial for us because it weakens the premise of the main motion. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will be defeated.