<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think you hit the nail on the head Mark.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Paul Wilkins <<a href="mailto:paulwilkins369@gmail.com">paulwilkins369@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I can't wait to see the full extent of responses. What I've seen so far speaks of not just the quality and detail of submissions, but the broad base of responses, ensuring representation of a diversity of interests, and raising a broad range of concerns and recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's a strong vindication for the processes of representative democracy that so many have taken the time to make a contribution.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It isn’t “representative democracy” when the only reason the Govt is pursuing this is because the Americans said they wanted it in a 5-eyes meeting.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865">https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think we can all expect the “broad range of concerns and recommendations” to be ignored by the Government because they’re a client State of the Americans and will bloody-well do what they’re told, no matter what Australian voters say they want. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>They might make some amendments around the edges, but only in places where doing so doesn’t erect any significant barrier in the way of them doing what they’ve already decided they’re going to do.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Then, in three years, they’ll come back and say they need to “modernize Australia’s national security laws” (again) and undo the amendments. Which is actually precisely what they’re doing now in relation to the limits they placed on themselves three years ago regarding data retention, if you’ll recall.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It is a corruption of the democratic process, not an example of it functioning properly. There is no democratic brake on the advancement of the intelligence community’s powers, they continue to do whatever the hell they want, with no recourse.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Given the circumstances, it’s a bit naïve to suggest otherwise, don’t you think?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> - mark<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>