Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): If your question is whether it would have been preferable to have a compulsory personal attendance plebiscite with the usual Electoral Act arrangements, the government would say yes. But given that was not an option that the parliament agreed with, we went with the next best option. Of course, all of the relevant statutory arrangements to protect— The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order, Senator Moore? Senator Moore: I'm really keen to get a very clear answer on this particular issue about the protections being applied. Can you confirm—I am asking particularly this question—the protections you identified there will be as strong as those that are currently in the Electoral Act? The PRESIDENT: I think the minister was getting there, but I'll remind the minister of the question. Senator CORMANN: There are some provisions—for example, the authorisation provisions—that are obviously not in force. And what I have said to the chamber is that the government is open to consider them. If the various participants in this debate are of the view that it would be useful to have these arrangements in place and if there was a consensus across this chamber that it would be a sensible thing, then the government is open to facilitate legislation to give effect to that. We want this to be a positive and fair process. We want this to facilitate, in a fair, respectful and courteous manner, the opportunity for all Australians to have their say. Some Australians will not comply with that, whether we have a plebiscite or not. Some Australians will say— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT: Senator Moore, a final supplementary question.