I'm a little more agnostic than my colleagues. Whether it's defined in the regulations or the act, it doesn't matter as much to me; it's the process that matters to me.
We used to have a regulatory development process that was tripartite, where labour, business, and government would sit in a room and hash out what the appropriate words should be in our regulations. This is how part XX came to be. It was a multi-year project. It probably took longer than it needed to, but we ended up with an excellent regulation. That's gone now. Under the previous government, that went away. I guess it was trying to streamline the process, or whatever. Under the current process I would have to say it's probably better to bring it into the act itself.
As for what the definition should be, I was watching the minister speak to the panel the other day and she had some very wise words, saying that we have to be broad in our definitions, that 10 or 15 years ago we wouldn't have considered cyber-bullying. I thought that was an excellent point she raised.
Sometimes the simplest definitions are the best. We define harassment as any vexatious behaviour that an average person ought to have known is wrong. That's a fairly basic definition; maybe it's simple enough. That's just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my definition book with me, but we do have specific definitions that will be going into our full submission.