Also, let's say you're a journalist and you discover that ASIO are abusing their powers. Telling anyone this will get you jailed. Also, let's say you work for ASIO and you're told to abuse your powers. Telling anyone this will get you jailed. And let's be clear: ASIO have a rich history of abusing their powers, as recently as last December when they raided the offices of the lawyers acting for the Timorese government in a case currently before the International Court of Justice, in which Australia is accused of having spied on the Timorese government during negotiations over oil and gas deposits. So, to recap: ASIO will be legally permitted to spy on anything you do with your phone or your computer, and complaining about it will be a jailable offence. Huzzah! Let freedom ring! Interestingly, the US have had similar laws in place for over a decade. Have they kept everyone safe from The Terrorisms?

Funny you should ask. Come spy with me! Back in January the New America Foundation - an independent US public policy thinktank - did a little study on how much safer the US was after the various permanent laws expanding government monitoring of citizens had been put in place. The report, entitled "Do NSA's Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?" is an interesting read. And you're probably in a hurry, so I'll cut to the conclusion: "nup". Looking at the 225 people charged under terrorism laws since 9/11, they found that "traditional investigative methods, such as the use of informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, provided the initial impetus for investigations in the majority of cases, while the contribution of NSA's bulk surveillance programs to these cases was minimal."

How minimal? 1.8 per cent of cases minimal, specifically, and that the use of telecommunications metadata uncovered exactly one case: that of "Basaaly Moalin, a San Diego cabdriver who in 2007 and 2008 provided $8,500 to al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia". Mass surveillance is incredibly expensive, very difficult to do, and - as far as anyone can demonstrate - doesn't work in doing anything other than stifling freedom of speech and legitimate dissent. But Labor are on side with the laws, so let's not waste time with all that "is this a good idea?" nonsense - heck, there's surveilling to be done! Foetuses: not actually clairvoyant

Another important question was raised in parliament today, which is "…the hell?" There's a bill before the Senate to remove Medicare funding for gender-selective abortions. Now, it's worth pointing out that there is zero credible evidence that there have ever been gender selective abortions in Australia, but it's not like the Senate has anything more pressing to discuss at the moment. Anyway, in the great tradition of conservative-leaning male politicians having strange, demonstrably false notions about how female fertility works - from Victorian MP Geoff Shaw's screed about "tummy eggs" to Eric Abetz's stirring pronouncement that abortions cause cancer (which he has since denied saying, despite the existence of the above video) - now Liberal senator Chris Back felt the need to explain that "we know that naturally occurring miscarrying [is] some innate capacity or ability of the foetus to understand that it's not going to survive post-foetal life." This came up in a discussion of how Medicare records don't distinguish between miscarriages and terminations, which is true. Some states do collect that data, others do not. It's why whenever someone starts waving terrifying abortion stats around it's worth asking where they got their numbers from, since the answer is generally "from within my lower intestine". And that's also where Back pulled his assertion that "all mammalian species" magically predict their own future and make a balanced assessment on whether they should keep on gestating or not.

Have you met babies before, C-dawg? They're awesome, sure, and they're way more developed than foetuses, yet they show absolutely no indication of being able to make balanced decisions regarding their future happiness. If they could, they'd almost certainly be choosing to poo themselves a lot less. He also explained that "maleness is actually suppressed femaleness". Which is… seriously, what? More Martian goodness! On a far happier and more scientifically-credible note, India's space program has had an amazing win with the news that the Mangalyaan satellite has successfully gone into orbit around Mars. It's amazing for a bunch of reasons: one, that getting stuff to Mars is just incredibly difficult (over half of all Mars missions have either failed or failed badly) and two, that it was done on a budget of US$74 million, as opposed to NASA's budget for the MAVAN probe earlier in the week, which was US$671 million. To be fair, they did get all the optional extras on MAVAN: leather interior, keyless entry and those sweet custom rims.

It's a great day for science (science!) as Mangalyaan starts six months of scouring the upper atmosphere for methane - which, if found, would be a very strong indication that the planet once harboured life (and possibly still does). It'll also be looking for signs of water and mapping the Martian surface, into which it will presumably then crash once its fuel runs out next March. The cocktail hour: puppies! And finally: rinse all of the unpleasantness away with the sight of dachshund puppies cavorting about the place. And hope you've enjoyed the first week of this column - let's report back on Sunday and see where we are, eh? Salut! The top five stories on smh.com.au on Thursday: