Absolutely.
I don't think there's any question that a government, or a member of the Crown, or a minister of the Crown can seek legal opinion. That makes them clients.
My concern is that when the issue of solicitor-client privilege is raised in legal proceedings, lawyers can rant and rave that they have solicitor-client privilege, but it's the courts that decide whether there's solicitor-client privilege, not some lawyer who is trying to stick up for his or her client.
With both the existing section and the sections proposed by Commissioner Reid and his staff, the head of the government decides. That's rather a new concept, I think. I suppose, too, it's possible that if someone didn't like that, they could appeal to the Information Commissioner. I don't know. I'm not sure about that, but I assume there's an appeal process, and there could be an appeal. That's my first observation: that it's a strange process. For everybody else, the courts decide, yet in this particular legislation, old and proposed new, it's the head of a government institution that decides.
Secondly, I also find it strange that it's the head of the government that decides what's injurious to the interest of the Crown. I don't even know what that means. Who knows what that means? I don't know what it means. I'll bet you the head of a government institution doesn't know what it means.
Those are two comments, Minister. I don't know whether you have put your mind to that--maybe your colleagues have--and whether we could have your comment.