> There is no way possible that they have reviewed and considered all public submissions in 10 days. The government also stated that they had "widely consulted

> There is no way possible that they have reviewed and considered all public submissions in 10 days. The government also stated that they had "widely consulted industry" to which the major IPSs denied. Normally both side of politics are happy for ideas to be discussed in civil society for months if not years. The internet filter, or NEG, the "meta data" discussion - so many examples. There is no practical reason this should not go the same route. But there might be a political one. The strong response means it's probably going to be opposed by just about everybody. My guess is the Libs are hoping it will create a long and loud debate on of their favoured topics - law and order. They desperately need something, anything, to get their own internal turmoil off the front pages, and this must seem like what the doctor ordered. One way of stoking the debate it to get it before the parliament, and quickly. I'm sure they see it as no different to the meta data debate. The arguments against that were subtle - explaining how big data can be used to knit together a fairly complete picture of a persons life from just the addresses on envelopes is hard. But explaining what is do bad about this won't be so hard: they are demanding the be allowed to legally hack all devices we own so they can install spyware. The concept has been explored in the popular media through movies like Minority Report and TV shows like Person of Interest. If the government makes it easy for themselves to do this, the idea that criminals and rogue states will use it too has already been implanted. I suspect the debate may go a bit differently this time.