"People are anxious about the national security threats we face," the Prime Minister noted. And he made sure of it. Illustration: John Shakespeare "By any measure, the threat to Australia is worsening," Abbott said. "The signs are ominous. ASIO currently has over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. That's more than double the number a year ago." And so on. This may be factually correct, but is it a prime minister's job to engender fear among his people? Isn't that the terrorists' job? As an authority on the subject has pointed out: "The indirect costs of terrorism are, overall, significantly greater than the direct physical ones," writes the former deputy chief of counter-terrorism for the CIA, Paul Pillar. "They start with the fear instilled in individual citizens, and what it leads those citizens to do. The fear itself – the sheer mental discomfort – is a cost."

As the word suggests, indeed shouts, terrorism is the use of terror. Fear is used to weaken a nation's judgement and its unity. Tony Abbott faces sustained questioning in the party room on Tuesday - on issues such as Philip Ruddock's axing as chief government whip, children in detention and the government's submarines project. Credit:Andrew Meares A national leader's first duty in counter-terrorism is to resist fear by emanating calm. In his remarks on terrorism in months past, Abbott always made sure to exhort Australians to go on with their lives as usual. This was missing from Monday's speech. The second chief emotion was anger. Abbott offered to channel the anger of the people: "Many are angry because all too often the threat comes from someone who has enjoyed the hospitality and generosity of the Australian people." Some anger was aimed at terrorists, some at immigrants who "reject our values," some at "hate preachers" and some at Muslim leaders.

Said the Prime Minister: "I've often heard Western leaders describe Islam as a 'religion of peace'. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it." And: "Everybody, including Muslim community leaders, needs to speak up clearly." This is surely right. But, once again, is it a national leader's job to emphasise what we all know, that the Muslim community is more prone than others to the siren song of Islamist extremists? Paul Pillar points out that the second great cost that terrorism inflicts is "the social effect" of "ostracising fellow citizens of particular ethnic backgrounds that are associated with terrorism, or doing any of a number of other dysfunctional things that less fearful citizens would not do". The former ASIO chief David Irvine said in his valedictory speech to the National Press Club last year: "We should also recognise that the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself

"I know from my own experience that the problem in Australia would be far greater without their efforts. We should thank them and continue to work with them." In directing anger at leaders of the Australian Muslim community, Abbott contradicts the agencies responsible for our safety. On the evidence of Irvine's words, we have to conclude that Abbott is harming, not helping, the counter-terrorism effort. Indeed, Abbott commits the very sin that he damns in others: "Organisations and individuals blatantly spreading discord and division should not do so with impunity." He was intending this remark for Hizb ut-Tahrir, a nasty international Sunni association that has set up a Sydney office. It argues the case for an end to democracy and the imposition of sharia law, but does not advocate violence. The advice of the police and intelligence agencies to Abbott is that this outfit has not broken any laws in Australia.

So Abbott wants to change the laws to introduce "stronger prohibitions on vilifying, intimidating or inciting hatred". He has given them publicity and relevance beyond their imaginings. Still, it could be a reasonable step to limit vilification and hatred, depending on exactly how he proposes to do it. He gave no detail. Of course, in taking any steps to curb free speech Abbott will have to be careful that he does not violate the very values that set civilised societies apart from the fascist barbarians of the so-called Islamic State. As for the other elements of resolve in Abbott's speech, most proposals are incremental and unobjectionable. The government's campaign to require phone companies to keep metadata for two years is in this category. It has been demonised as a dreadful new intrusion on civil liberties; in fact it would simply formalise the status quo.

Perhaps more notable than Abbott's promises of action are his omissions. Just one day earlier he brought down the findings of an official review into the Monis hostage-taking in Martin Place. Among other sensible recommendations, the review called on the federal and state governments to "give further consideration to measures to how to deal with illegal firearms". The authorities estimate that there are a quarter of a million illegal guns in Australia today. This would surely be a prudent measure that would curb the risk posed by criminals of all kinds, including terrorists. What did Abbott say on this? Nothing. The politics of this are too hard for a weakened conservative. By choosing to foster fear and division, by failing to embrace truly meaningful security recommendations such as a gun crackdown, Abbott has inadvertently exposed his weakness, not his strength. If we withdraw the benefit of the doubt, we see a failing leader merely posturing on national security in a sad effort to hold his job.