Despite the huge economic costs of counter-terrorism (CT) policing to Australia over the past 15 years, one major debate remains divisive and unresolved: how can we develop and institute laws that are effective in diminishing violent extremism while maintaining the integrity of our democratic freedoms? As indicated by Australia’s former Prime Minister, the balance between citizens’ rights and policing powers has largely been tipped in favour of the latter. Australia’s legislative response to countering terrorism since September 11 has

been heavily weighted towards a policy of prevention: granting policing and security agencies a wider remit to interrupt the process of terrorism at increasingly earlier junctures through new powers and the criminalisation of behaviours that manifest a predisposition towards offending, often known as ‘precursor crimes’. Such laws include those granting policing and intelligence agencies enhanced surveillance, investigatory and coercive powers, laws enabling non-conviction-based schemes of preventative detention and control orders, and laws creating and punishing offences connected to (increasingly preparatory) terrorism-related activity.