I think what we've talked about is that BQ-4 turns it on its head and requires the police to itemize everything in every kind of service provider, while the subamendment does the opposite. It retains the subscriber information definition.
They have to have their grounds. They have to set it out in their affidavit, but it is up to the subscriber. He's not saying I need X name. It's how they categorize their data, and they'll give the information. The back-and-forth, in our view, would be eliminated. You heard the officer talk about having to go back and ask for it again. I think that the subamendment retains the overall purpose of the subscriber tool so that police don't need to itemize, but it does retain the discretion that the judge orders what is set out in the affidavit. Again, what we understood was the critical recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner was to make sure that the judges retain discretion in the decision-making. That was the focus of the subamendment.