You could do something like that, but I don't think it would be consistent with the scheme here. There are amendments other than the one we're talking about right now at section 487.0193. I think it's clause 10. There are no motions for that, but that spells out a new timing regime for the ability to object to a production order, and the connection is not really clear about the return date and the objection date.
What's happened, because this provision applies to all production orders.... The objection date was actually interpreted to be the return date. Almost by default, a lot of production orders are issued with the 30-day return date right now. You have to remember—and Ms. Gibner talked about this—that prior to Spencer, there used to be a database that police were able to pull from in real time to get customer name and address information in relation to a phone number. It was in real time.
Most of our Five Eyes partner countries can get this information within hours or days. To have a 30-day timeline, I think, would perpetuate the issue that police are having currently, which is a delay in getting very basic information at the beginning of an investigation.
Also, as Sergeant Gilkes said, it has a cascading effect, because this is just basically the start of an investigation, and if there's a 30-day delay and on the next there's a 30-day delay, before you know it, you're a few months old. In terms of investigations of cybercrime and crimes that happen online, it may not be the subscriber information that's at risk of being lost, because service providers need that to bill you, but it's all the other information that will actually lead you or connect the crime that might be at risk, because there's no standard for how that information is kept.