Senator GREIG (9:36 PM) —I concur strongly with what Senator Lundy is saying. As she was speaking I was trying to think of an illustration, perhaps in a different context, so that people who are not familiar with the technology might get a mental picture of what we are talking about. Regrettably, I did not get one. I guess it would be a little like taking a car from someone whose car had been stolen and then had been returned to them, seizing the car from them because it had been broken into by other unknown people. That is perhaps a clumsy illustration, but I think people will see what I am trying to get at.

The Democrats have very similar concerns in terms of the search and seizure provisions contained in the bill, and at least some of the Democrat amendments on the running sheet expand and complement the principle that Senator Lundy and the opposition are proposing. I think Senator Lundy has articulated clearly what it is that is trying to be achieved there. It is a principle that we can endorse. We think that, as it is currently drafted, the sharp edge of the mechanisms for criminal proceedings within the Spam (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2003 are focused, in this instance, on the wrong target.