And then, naturally, there was the bit admonishing the parliament for failing to pass the government's data retention laws, even through the terrorists are even now preparing to climb through the internet tubes. "Access to metadata is the common element to most successful counter-terrorism investigations," he incorrectly declared. "It's essential in fighting most major crimes, including the most abhorrent of all - crimes against children." At the risk of sounding like a broken record - even more so than the PM - that's bollocks. We've seen from the US that compulsory metadata retention (which the US has had for over a decade) has been key to a single terrorism-related case: the arrest of a man for donating money to an al-Qaeda-affiliated Somalian group. Similarly, the across-the-board crime clearing rate in Germany was enhanced by 0.006 per cent, which the parliamentary committee investigating the use of retained data admitted was probably a statistical error. We've seen from all over the world that investigations into child pornography are not done by using collected metadata but by police investigations into forums and darknet websites (as we discussed at some length last week).

In fact, as strategies to improve national safety go, data retention is matched in effectiveness by the Men Without Hats Protocol (instructional video below). PM includes a little something for the bigots However, just in case anyone was confused as to exactly who the problem is, the PM was ready to give his dog whistle a good, solid blast. "I've often heard Western leaders describe Islam as a 'religion of peace'," he sighed. "I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it."

Hearing you loud and clear, big guy: any time a Muslim isn't explicitly declaring they're not a terrorist, they clearly are - and if they are saying that, they probably don't mean it. Message received! How to exploit a tragedy The PM referenced the Martin Place siege six times in his speech as proof that the laws are inadequate and that terrorism is on the rise. However, let's remember a few teensy-tiny little facts about what actually happened at the Lindt Café. One was that it's the first such time this has ever happened - which explains why, with the best will in the world, the authorities did a less-than-stellar job of dealing with it. That our police are insufficiently experienced at dealing with sieges is a potent reminder of just how rare such tragedies are in Australia. Two, the gunman Man Haron Monis was already known to police and intelligence agencies. He had been monitored by ASIO for years and was deemed to be a crank with a history of violence against women - something of which our Minister for Women has something of a historical blind spot - but not an imminent threat.

Three, as a person of interest to the authorities, police already had grounds to apply for access to his phone and internet records if they felt they needed them. They did not. Four, his rhetoric had reportedly ramped up in the week ahead of the siege, with 18 calls logged from citizens concerned about things he'd written on his Facebook page in the three days leading up to the siege. The police didn't need his metadata, let alone yours: all they needed to do was actually pull up that publicly-accessible page and go "oooh, yeah, probably worth having a look at this chap again." In fact, all of the evidence suggests that our existing laws and procedures do a pretty great job of keeping us safe, and the times the system fails - as with this one - the issue is that information was ignored or overlooked rather than that there was insufficient amounts of it. If anything, this is an argument against data retention. Giving them access to your mum's browsing history is just adding more noise to an already-noisy data set, surely? Only baddies hate data retention

The Australian Federal Police, however, would like to assure everyone that concerns about metadata are totally exaggerated. "Your chances that your data will be viewed by law enforcement is low," declared AFP Assistant Commissioner Tim Morris. "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear." Except that the fear with data retention isn't that it will be used: it's that it will be abused. And the reason that fear exists is that it's precisely what happens all the time already, by criminals and law enforcement personnel alike. There's a reason LOVEINT is a filing abbreviation for the US's National Security Agency: because there are so many investigations into security personnel using their clearance to run background checks on their spouses, stalk their exes, or spy on their hot neighbours. In fact, there is already terrifyingly little oversight into access to data - as was revealed by an anonymous law enforcement official who spoke on the most recent Download This Show.