Australia's Bad Law

Australia’s saga of the fight against phantom terrorism shows the absurdity of introducing draconian laws. Sponsors of the new laws, the Liberal Federal government, are not totally gung ho about the Prime Minister’s new police state.
A call from the high-profile Liberals for an independent watchdog to “Parliament so that any "unintended adverse consequences" of the counter-terrorism legislation were identified and promptly rectified” highlights internal concerns.From Michelle Grattan’s Melbourne Age article, prominent Liberal Petro Georgiou, says; “One concern was that laws that were intended to be non-discriminatory might be applied in a discriminatory way —
"that the security and police agencies will use their powers against people who are suspect because of their actual or presumed religion or ethnic background, not on the basis of information about behaviour of particular individuals".

This is bad law which is becoming increasingly cumbersome and problematic. When you need watchdogs to watch the watchdogs there is serious cause for concern.  In defending the provisions of the proposed anti-terrorism laws, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, insists that the proposed law has exactly the same power as in the existing Crimes.
If that is the case, and I highly doubt it, then why do we need a new law which duplicates an existing law? A spokesman for Mr Ruddock also played down the need for such statutory monitor, saying a number of "review and oversighting mechanisms" were already in operation.
Not that good old Phil has a great deal of credibility these days. He spends a good deal of time defending Howard’s position, only to find that Howard has shifted while Phil was talking. It must be disheartening for the AG.
The bottom line is that this is draconian legislation from a government with a poor record on civil rights and concerns.
Putting aside the worry of putting such powers into the hands of already tainted police, there are other negative aspects.
Australia’s Muslim community, like any other sector, has its unstable rump. Largely young people, who are on the outer edges of the socio/economic scale, these trouble people have already demonstrated their instability.
Whether intended or not, there is a belief that these laws target Muslims. Rather than control terrorism, the laws threaten to incite those on the fringes; to give them a ‘real’ agenda.
They don’t need to be political or radicals to find this, apparent attack, ample reason to ‘join the fight’. We have already witnessed similar responses from young people on the fringes in Australia, people of all backgrounds.
This is bad law. It does nothing for the security of Australia and Australians. In fact, it does nothing more than harm what security already exists.