The Government might be trusted more to do this right if other security related laws, and particularly those related to handbaggage in aircraft, weren't so manifestly absurd.

The proposed criminalisation of leaving baggage unattended looks a bit strange. Clearly, it's not going to deter terrorists from doing this. At best it will reduce the number of false alarms. But if people are really leaving baggage lying around airports at the moment, why are we not hearing about the resulting mass disruption? Or are the authorities ignoring that problem at the moment?

There is today a report that people will be banned from wearing emergency service uniforms if they are not members of the emergency services (with certain exemptions). The concern is that terrorists might use such uniforms, yet again it seems improbable that criminalisation of such conduct will be a deterrent.

At the very least, Governments need to explain in more detail exactly how they think these various measures will help. Otherwise it looks like a piece out of "Yes Minister" - "We need to do something, this is something, so we need to do it."

Sylvia Else

I would not trust The Hon Philip Ruddock, The Hon John Howard, or any other members of their government, with protection of my liberties or the liberty of the Australian population in general. The idea that abandoning rights is the means to defending them, is arrant and dangerous nonsense. And when done in the name of an illegitimately declared "War on Terror", it means doing it on a blank cheque, in perpetuity, in secrecy and with no accountability.

Spooks calling the shots on who gains & loses their liberty?
Foxes running the hen house?
It's all the same.

It reminds me of dialogue in a Simpsons episode:

Lisa: ‘By the same logic, you could say that this rock I’m holding keeps tigers away.’
Homer: ‘But it’s just a rock.’
Lisa: ‘Right. But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?’
Homer: ‘…Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.’
*Lisa resists fistful of cash for a moment, then shrugs and takes the money in exchange for the rock*

I don’t buy it, Phil. You’re trading our liberty for a false sense of security. Also, you have creepy staring eyes.

I'm loathe to say that its our elected representatives (politicians) calling the shots. It appears that the Government, Labor and the Premiers all support these anti-terrorism proposals.

There'll be some cosmetic objections of course.

So rather than writing off the debate as "spooks" and something out of an American show, I think, we need to work within the political realities.

Sylvia, I reckon the bags left in airports proposal will have a priviso that a bag was demonstrably left in an airport to cause mischief and/or fear. Something like that. Intent would be hard to prove though.

The proposal I mainly have a problem with is that brought up in Howard's/Ruddock's 8 September speech http://www.law.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Interview_Transcripts_2005_Transcripts_8_September_2005_-_Transcript_-_Joint_Press_Conference_Parliament_House

That is "is inciting violence against the community to replace the existing sedition offence to address problems with those who communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including against Australia’s forces
overseas and in support of Australia’s enemies."

This proposal is messy because the assessment as to whether someone is "inciting violence" is always subjective. The criteria would need to be widely accepted.

The proposal may also become unworkablee in relation to the Internet. If someone was to have a dirty great blog that included hotlinks to pro al-Quaida sites could the blog site manager be charged with inciting violence. Still worse what if he quoted statements origination from al-Quiada (as repoted in the international press or foreign sites) in a learned debate.

That particular proposal is a can of worms.

Prevention is better than cure - but you dont take radiotherapy for a head cold.

I've had it up to here (see sneekee indicating a point near his throat)with this two faced approach - some times we're a target and sometimes we're not, nothing we've done has increased our risk of attack - but just in case we're wrong in our assesment bring down the shutters.

I have no confidence in the integrity of our intelligence agencies or their competence; Ive made my own judgements on risk and prefer to feel relaxed and comfortable as John wanted us to be - just before we needed to be alert not alarmed.

Yet here we have an alarmist resposne to a remote possibility - unless of course ASIO et al know something we dont that is.

Ruddock tells us ASIO has only used its questioning powers 8 times since 2002 AND not its detention powers: I would suggest those questioned under bizarre raids in Sydney and Melbourne were detained in order to be questioned even for only a few hours.

And if the powers have been so rarely used doesnt that suggest the problem is really quite minor? How many of those questioned had any action taken against them? or what action was taken in respose to what they had to say? So why ramp up the powers?

And I want to know everything about the plots to attack our cities and everything about plans to kill our citizens: where are the banner headlines? the micro film images of floorplans, the diagrams of explosive devices, the list of code names, the address of the safe houses, the document drop off points, the photos of the spies lairs, the list of names.

These guys desperate to live a John Le Carre' kind of world are making us pay the price for their fundamental cowardice and over excited imagination.

Governments capitalise on societies fears; this is just another example of that - reject them - pour scorn on them defy them.

Whose that at my door? Ah! Inspector Kelty. How nice to see you.

I find these proposals very weak on terrorism. How many deaths will it take to convince Ruddock to give up his discredited liberal dream that everyone is equal, all Religions the same? Keith