I think there are two elements to it, sir. As I said, we believe in independent, expert, non-partisan oversight of our national security agencies as a better model than political intervention, or if you will, a sort of partial review.
Australia's inspector-general is an independent example. There are two parts. One is the oversight of the application of the law and the other part is the ability to review and appeal incidents as the law is applied.
The intent may be outstanding and the legislation may even be framed very well, but the law is applied by many other people who had no part in the drafting. You can see time and time again how those applications sometimes go awry or overreach. There needs to be a reasonable and prompt appellate process.
One thing that's a concern is, for example, a very simple case of the ability at the border. Somebody comes in and says, “What's in your bag?” We've given a relatively inexperienced, partially trained security officer the right to demand access to a computer and to hold you responsible if you do not comply. On top of that, before you can finish your appeal, they're still probing the computer to figure out what's in it. That really is not appropriate. Everything should be frozen until the appeal is dealt with. There are many instances of that nature.