Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Look I must say I thought my questions in regards to clause 51(2)(b) and (e) were pretty reasonable in terms of just asking for one example that the Minister would foresee around those examples taking into account the scope of those points are so wide ranging. But a sort of flippant far away comment that you know I'm not going to get into the detail because it's up to the commissioner" is I don't think a satisfactory answer. But I'll maybe give the Minister a little bit more time to think around a little bit more of a satisfactory answer because I think that's a reasonable question to ask.I'll move on to clause 52 which is below that and which is in regards to the consultation of the draft report and I do ask the Minister to provide a response which is not just you know a throwaway comment. But the point of this clause 52(1) is that before the report or the inquiry report is finalised not only should a draft report be published but more importantly—and that point around my question—is that there is reasonable time allowed for comments on the draft.And my question for the Minister in regards to 52(1)(b) is: does the Minister foresee that that process in the public forum would be that there would be a mechanism in terms of consultation that would be similar to say consultation that local government does around specific projects—i.e. there is a mechanism in which the public can provide submissions and there's a mechanism for those submissions to be considered and heard and potentially feedback given back? What does the consultation of the draft report consider? Because I acknowledge that as the Minister noted before the scale of the inquiries may be big or small. I guess I'm particularly interested in when the inquiry is dealing with a large-scale issue which is meeting the threshold where it would be reasonable to expect that there is a public interest in regards to that. So can you give us some context in regards to how that consultation process would look. What would the Minister consider is a reasonable time? Are we thinking a reasonable time as in the context of what we would use in this House for a select committee process? And what are the mechanisms in which the public can engage in such a process to reduce the barriers of people being able to participate in such a feedback process particularly where the scale of the inquiry is a degree of scale that has public interest.I then want to move on to clause 54 if I can and just in the interest of time this is where the Minister then gets back that report after that consultation and the report is finalised. This is clause 54 "The Minister must within 1 month after receiving the final report present the report back to the House of Representatives." It's interesting that that is such a prescriptive number—and Andrew Bayly is looking at me going "You're right I didn't pick up on that" and I know he did because he was very diligently looking at this bill through the select committee process which we both were part of. And you know well some may think a month is a long time. It's a long time in politics isn't it when you think about the last month in politics. Crikey won't get into that because it's not part of the bill. But geez what a last month it has been for some parties in this House. The one month in terms of the scale you know how do we get to that; is it appropriate? We're talking a large-scale review. Is that genuinely going to be enough time for the Minister to be able to take the recommendations which as I outlined in clause 51(2)(b) and (e) could be significant and wide ranging and of scale and be able to then provide that feedback back around the final report in order to then table it in the House. Some context around whether the Minister is comfortable that that is appropriate around what is required would be very helpful in that regard."