Mr. Conor King:

The Senator has probably hit on something very important there. The word "any" is quite strong from our perspective, but there is also an opportunity here that the reasons can be prescribed, but they must be prescribed in detail. We noted from the rest of the defence (amendment) Bill that there is great detail put into it regarding the dispatch of troops overseas, for example, but there is very little detail with regard to the stuff that actually matters to Defence Forces personnel on the ground. What we are trying to do here is highlight the fact that, first, there has not been consultation and, second, it is not too late for consultation to occur. When we shine a light on head 22, for example, and we talk about "any prescribed reason", we note that there is potential for regulations to be written, but we are not confident that we will be consulted on those either so for that reason we do shine a light on it. We agree that maybe there is a strengthening, but it lacks in detail and there is an opportunity there. Second, we would ask potentially and with the greatest of respect, a Chathaoirligh, that perhaps that might be a role for the committee to look at with regard to the regulations when they are written in terms of oversight.