I won't be long. It's just a follow-up to MP Vis.
In our amendment, we thought there were several circumstances beyond proposed section 44 where this definition wasn't needed. That seems almost common sense: talking to a relative or the exemption for national defence. Yes, it's true that proposed sections 33 and 43 and proposed subsection 47(1) were added in addition to what the Privacy Commissioner was looking for in proposed section 44, but I haven't really heard a good reason why MP Turnbull's coming amendment doesn't include those sections.
Are we saying that the level of police requirement still needs to be in place for proposed sections 33 and 34 and proposed subsection 47(1)?