The member for Parkes is right; that's wrong. I'm going to quote the member for Cowper; he said it 'exposes the filthy underbelly of partisan politics'. He was very moved by this because of what he's done in his life to try and protect children. He didn't agree with this bill, and that's okay. The government's got the right to bring this bill on, but they should have had it debated because it's contested. And the people I represent, and the people the member for Parkes represents, have the right to have their representative speak on such a complex and controversial bill in this place, the people's house. It is the people's house, and if the people are disenfranchised then where are we going with democracy?

In relation to the bill itself, the difficulty that many on this side had—even though we support the intent to protect children from online harm—was that the 17 codes and standards that we felt could have been built upon to better protect children would have been a better way to go than what the government introduced. It gave the minister sweeping powers, which we didn't think was appropriate and we didn't think was going to work. If the government could bring in a bill which deals with the algorithms and criminalises the activity that we all don't want to see, I'd be the first to support it. Bring in something that does that, and I'll be the first to support it; I'll cross the floor if I have to. I don't believe this bill did that, but it's very disappointing that we couldn't come in here and debate it the way it should have been debated in this House.