One issue raised by debate over the findings of the coronial inquiry into the Lindt Cafe siege, and Deborah Snow’s important book on the subject, is whether the increasing militarisation of the police in Australia is desirable.

The new federal "call-out" powers, which lower the threshold for deployment of the military to help police deal with major terrorist and violent attacks, are welcome. This is a better development than greater militarisation of the police - a change that has been taking place incipiently in Australia, without informed discussion, political debate or public oversight. It is an unhealthy development.

Hostages run from the Lindt Cafe towards Special Operations police on December 16, 2014. Credit:Andrew Meares

The police have no incentive to say "no" to military assault rifles, flash bang grenades or armoured personnel carriers. But do we, as a society, really want to see our police so heavily armed, looking, and sometimes behaving, like an invasion force? Is it necessary or desirable? The more the police are given military-style weaponry, the more likely they are to use it. As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There is a vital cultural and philosophical difference between the military and the police. The military is trained to use maximum force to kill and destroy the enemy; while the traditional role of the police is to protect the community, serve the public and keep the peace.