I wasn't being pejorative, I was merely suggesting that you think a bit further when its suggested that the only way to be secure is to erode your civil liberties.  Nor did I suggest that a balance wasn't possible.  I was saying that it has been a favourite argument of authoritarian governments through history.  The Reichstag fire being the most obvious example (and no I'm not suggesting the government are Nazis or that the threat is faked).

This stream of planned and prevented attacks, which I have no reason to believe are not real were not prevented by partial suspension of  habeus corpus.  Clearly this is the case as the the bill hasn't been passed yet.

Same is true of the Australian example you mentioned.

I suspect given these powers, you will soon find them being used in situations for which the government currently claims they are not intended.