By the way, our attempt in this was not to put the minister in some kind of box or to make him more vulnerable. God forbid. At the same time, I cannot imagine a minister saying that we're going to be keeping people in detention. I don't think that was the minister's or your intention either, if (a) to (c) and (e) have been met, because if they're a threat to the nation, they're going to be captured in (a) to (c) and (e). We're only saying that if the reasons for the detention no longer exist. So if there is a problem with our wording—and I'm not a technician—and you feel that a different wording would get to where we're trying to get to, I would like to work with you to get us there.
I've heard your comment about not wanting to make it mandatory for the minister, but I think at the same time you don't want to leave language like “in the Minister's opinion”, because I would say that any reason why a minister would want to keep somebody in detention is already captured in (a), (b), (c), and (e). If we're saying that they are the only reasons people are going to be detained, and it's the government language that has said that, then surely, when none of those reasons exist, we have to have that tied to that rather than to any minister—and I'm not saying this minister; I'm saying any minister's, current or future, opinion. We don't keep people in detention because of opinions; we keep people in detention because we've articulated the reasons why they are being detained. They are very clear in (a), (b), (c), and (e). If you like, I can read them out to you, but I'm sure you've memorized them as well.
I'm looking for assistance here, Chair, from my colleague across the way, because I think he understands the point I'm trying to make. We are not trying to box in the government with this. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sitting here trying to find a back door. I'm just trying to be very explicit as to the reasons for detention. The reasons for being released from detention should be parallel.