Senator LUNDY (8:20 PM) —Minister, I do find it astounding that you make statements like, `Well, we will nut out the detail once we have dealt with the vagaries of the Senate.' Goodness me! Here we are, dealing with a bill that you brought forward in such a hasty way and that you forced through a condensed committee process, you subsequently returned to the chamber with a comprehensive set of amendments to your own bill to try to fix up the gaps and the problems and the deficiencies and the inaccuracies in it, and then you stand up and say, `Well, there are a few vagaries that we will not be able to deal with and we will worry about that later.'

What on earth possesses you to think the industry, the stakeholders in this and the parents will have any confidence in you if you stand up here and say, `We will worry about the detail later'? You have had ample opportunity to map out some of these issues. I think it would be only fair and reasonable to expect, at least at this point, that you would be prepared to offer something a little more tangible than just vague references to a range of NetWatch committees, to mapping out their relationships later on and to seeing how it all evolves. Don't you think you owe the industry, which you messed around in the first instance by leaping across their endeavours to pull together an industry code, a little more than waffle such as you have provided? It is obvious that you do not know a lot about the intentions in this particular part of amendment (5) and the additional initiatives that are non-legislative and under the auspices of the ABA.

Can I ask you to take on notice to provide the committee with a full explanation of your conceptual framework of NetWatch committee/committees, if I heard you correctly, and how they will operate within the Australian community. Will they be the first port of call for any complaint? If so, where does that leave all of your statements to date about the ABA? And where does that leave the evidence from the ABA themselves that was quite explicit: `We will be the port of call for complaints'? This was actually quite a significant point in the early stages of this debate. It was certainly supported by the industry that the ABA be the first port of call for dealing with those complaints. It is now a little more vague as a result of your answers than it was before. Unless you have anything that can provide a little more light, a little more detail, perhaps you could take on notice to provide the committee with a complete explanation of just what your plans are and how closely they reflect international schemes.

I am sure I heard earlier in this committee stage debate that there were no other international examples that you could turn to and in fact that you were breaking new ground. So which is it, Minister? Are you using an international model—you mentioned the UK—or are you doing something new and different, or are you blending two approaches? I think you owe a proper explanation.