It is, but it isn't. At the same time, if you read the clause, it states very specifically, “for the purposes of the consideration of their application”.
In my opinion, I'd love to see every member of Parliament and senator, upon being appointed or elected, go through the security clearance process. If you fail it—because there's no guarantee you're going to get it—that should be publicized far and wide. Politically, I don't think that's acceptable, so therefore it will never happen.
I really struggled in my first cut of this with how I do this without wading into questions of parliamentary privilege and the access of that information. That's why I wrote the bill as only the first step in addressing this thing. It allows you to apply and you cannot be turned away. That's all that my bill does.
It's why that second clause.... I wish the language could be even more in plain speak. When you work with the drafters sometimes, it gets into.... I'm not a lawyer, so drafting some of this stuff.... That's the way it was written. That's the intent. It only allows you to apply and you only need to know for the purpose of getting that application.
Your example, Mr. Turnbull, is very good. You likely have a secret security clearance, but you're not even aware of it. How many secret documents have you read since you've been a parliamentary secretary? Likely very few. I'd argue none, because if you're not even aware that you have it, then I would argue you have yet to read it, even though you have a clearance.