David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

That's a 'computer says no' answer. Having tried three times, I'll probably move on to my next question. One of the other proposals from the Law Society was to, instead of having a discretion for the commissioner to revoke suspension where the reasons for suspension no longer apply, make it mandatory to return the protection where the reasons for suspension no longer apply. What's the rationale for giving the AFP commissioner or their delegate a discretion to not provide the protection, to not reinstate the protection, where the reasons it was revoked have been removed? In what circumstances is the government proposing that witnesses continue to be exposed to the risk—often to their life or their health and their safety and that of their families—where the rationale for the suspension has been removed? Why would you let the AFP commissioner continue to allow witnesses to have no protection?