David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I was explaining my concerns in this respect, explaining why I think the protected class warrants are justified, I did not say that legal professional privilege would be invaded. I recognise that content comprises that element of legal professional privilege and it would not be retained. What I said was: law societies have pointed out that retained metadata could allow inferences that undermine legal professional privilege to be drawn, arising from whether a given lawyer has been contacted, the identity and location of clients and witnesses, the number and types of communications and so on.

As you quite rightly say—and I understand you have said it twice; I do not think that justifies ad nauseam—I understand what you are saying. The point about it is that it is not only journalists' sources that need to be protected. There are undoubtedly instances where clients contacting lawyers without the content of that communication being revealed could undermine legal professional privilege.

Just while I am on my feet, as we are nearly out of time, I would point out that you were somewhat scathing of my suggestion of the public interest advocate not being appointed by the government, and who else could it be appointed by—parliament is the alternative.