The Nationals backed the judgement of one of their own, who sided with Greens and Labor MPs on the committee, rather than take the easy way out for what could easily be seen as a Perth law. Earlier disagreements, such as over retail trading laws, have largely been papered over. In that case Grylls and Co. stuck by their pre-election position on a matter that didn't concern them, and Colin Barnett was forced to try to turn the heat up on Labor. That didn't work either, unsurprisingly as both the Liberals and Labor have about-faced on the issue many times over, and the Premier was forced to compromise with the enemy rather than turn the heat up on his ally. But stop-and-search is a different matter. It strikes at the heart of Liberal dogma - that the party is "tough" on crime. The reality may well be different, but this government's Achilles heel has been a string of ill-thought-through legislation trying to live up to that tag.

Remember the overturning of truth-in-sentencing? That got rid of a sensible piece of legislation whose only handicap was a (previous) government unwilling to defend it. How about the anti-hoon law that saw innocent motorists have their cars seized? The Liberals have had their way on law and order issues but it's good to see the boot on the other foot. Sure the law would have made life easier for police, but then so would equipping them with rocket launchers. For the stop-and-search law was a gross infringement of individual rights. Sure it would have made life easier for police, but then so would equipping them with rocket launchers.

Police Minister Rob Johnson's implausible defence that the police did not have enough power under existing laws - an offender can be turned away at present but can come back armed and dangerous when no-one's looking - smacked of a bush lawyer at his worst. It would be laughed out of any court. He claimed there was little of the public "hysteria" seen in Perth - gotta love it when a politician uses that word - when Victoria introduced similar laws last year. Maybe he should read this. It's not hysteria. Just a calm assessment of what has happened - or otherwise. Maybe he wanted a reason to build up a collection of Swiss Army knives. There's little doubt that crimes involving weapons are serious matters. We don't want a society where its commonplace to carry a knife or gun.

And the public have a right to feel safe. Yet the public doesn't "feel" safe in their home town, no matter what laws are in place. One of the most common complaints you will hear wherever you live goes along the lines of: "Oh, it's terrible here. I'm too scared to go out at night. Over in (insert town here) you never see this sort of thing happen. Why can't we be like them?" Over in (insert town here) they say the same thing. And want it to be like where you are. Yes, it happens wherever you live in this country. No one feels safe. It's been that way for the past 40 years.

No amount of laws, save for some sort of Stalinist repression or adopting Japanese culture holus bolus, will change that. But that's the one reason it's easier to give law enforcement more and more powers with usually little scrutiny, as governments love to do to build their case. Scare tactics and "hysteria" (yes, Rob) are far easier - they usually bear little scrutiny past the headline. Davies and the Legislative Council committee scrutinised the pros and cons for months, much longer than it took the Bill Mark One to be put together. And certainly much longer than the time in which Mark Two was cobbled together. Surely adopting 36 of 46 changes was evidence enough for Johnson and the Liberals that this legislation was hopeless. Johnson's nonsense yesterday about bringing in the legislation to "save lives," and to watch out for an increase in knife attacks in Northbridge in the next few months, shouldn't be forgotten.

Doubtless he and his leader will try to dine out on the fact that things would have been even better had they got their way. And doubtless the number of weapons seized in Northbridge and train stations (under existing laws) could surge if resources are put into it (not that I'm suggesting that would be done). In a democratic society an inalienable right is to have sensible laws that allow us to go about our business with as little hindrance as necessary. Where there isn't an implied burden of innocence ("if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to be worried about") evident in all random checks. Loading

And in ensuring another statute did not enter the books which could whittle away at a right that is hard won and easily lost, Davies - first and foremost - and her colleagues - reluctant or otherwise - should be congratulated. Follow Chalpat Sonti on Twitter @ChalpatSonti