The so-called 'emergency' upon which these 'emergency' laws are purportedly based does not arise from an inability of our existing laws to cope with or address acts or proposed acts of violence (aka terrorism).

It is disingenuous to claim that Australia is, or would be, powerless to intervene should evidence of a planned violent attack come to light. We have clear criminal laws that address conspiracy and commission of acts of violence. Conspiracy is often difficult to establish, but when a person is found in possession of all the requirements necessary to commit an offence, those preparations themselves often amount to an offence in and of themselves. And of course, once acted out, violence falls under a range of criminal offences.

Specific laws aside, a State has the right to act in its own self-defence - and they have had and exercised this right for centuries.

These new laws are intended to address deficiencies in the capacities of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to acquire and assess information. They provide a range of sticks, rather than encouraging trust. People in fear will do what they think or feel is required to abate the fear, which raises doubts about the quality and reliability of information gathered through fear. Apparently our governors can't remember their own childhoods - or were too busy being free or enjoying free education - to pay attention to things like the Stasi, KGB, etc.

If we truely want to have a society that has and enjoys meaningful freedoms, we need to build trust, not fear. People who trust government agencies are more likely to volunteer information to them. People who understand what information those agencies need have a better chance of being able to volunteer useful and valuable information.

"Be Alert, Not Alarmed" is a great sound bite. But even a casual observer might be forgiven for feeling a little alarmed - about our government - which is surely the opposite of what would be desired?