<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Jul 20, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joseph Goldman <<a href="mailto:joe@apcs.com.au" class="">joe@apcs.com.au</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class="">(Again, I do plan to ask directly, but at this rate AusNOG may be a
quicker answer if someone has already got the answer from the horses
mouth).<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>"The horse’s mouth” is not AGD. They have never dealt with data retention in good faith; and now they’re too confused about the legislation they wrote to be able to deal in good faith anyway.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You will not get a good answer by asking them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>“The horse’s mouth” is a discussion with AGD conducted in the presence of your lawyer, who has been briefed to assume they are wrong, and to filter anything AGD says through the actual text of the legislation, with the intention of minimizing the extent of the obligations and costs imposed on you. Then you do what your lawyer says, rather than what AGD says.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Similarly, if AGD knocks back your DRIP, your lawyer should be challenging their judgement, and expecting justification for their position in the text of the legislation, and appealing their decisions via the AAT or the courts if their position appears untenable. They are <i class="">legally compelled</i> to accept your DRIP if it meets the law’s minimum requirements, so don’t let them reject it arbitrarily, and don’t let them talk you into taking a maximal approach.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Summary: Talk to a lawyer.</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - mark</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>