Actually, he is 100% wrong in at least one area.
It doesn't matter how much of a nut the attacker (I tend to think most people who carry out violence for religion are at least a little bit irrational) was, he still carried out an act of violence that had political demands (he wanted Abbott to say that Australia was under attack by IS, among other silly shit) - he used the fear of further attacks (executions of hostages) in order to coerce the govt into an act they otherwise would not take. That's the text book definition of terrorism, the sanity of the person that uses terror is not part of the equation, it's about their actions, not their mindset.
Because terrorism is a tactic the motivation of the person who employs it doesn't matter. You could commit an act of terror because you want to force the govt to allow cats and dogs to vote in elections. Clearly crazy but if you use the tactic of terror to try and force the govt to enact your demands, you're carrying out terrorism. You may be doing it because you are crazy but you're still doing it.
No one is trying to say that this guy was an international terrorist. He was a person that, for whatever reason, was seduced by the propaganda coming from globalist jihadi groups, who self radicalised and acted out violently. IS/AQ/whoever doesn't give a shit how loopy this guy was, they'll more than happily own his actions and look for ways to convince other psychologically unstable to people to act in their name. What a great weapon for IS/AQ to utilise: very difficult to detect, very harmful and very gullible. The means may be unorthodox but the ends are the same whether a trained operative carried them out or a person with mental issues carried them out.
As for the way politicians are acting, yeah, well, that's the way politicians act. I don't think anyone with half a brain is surprised by this, right? Pollies say what they think will resonate with the people, they want their vote. As for the terror policies, yeah, they will harness some of this momentum to get their bills through, as they would for something connected to the budget and any other policy. The reason for wanting greater measures of surveillance and detention, That's something that should be related to the security agencies more so than pollies.
Security agencies always want the strongest powers they can get. Their job is to secure shit and they don't want to be in the position they are now - some one slipped through the net and the sec agencies look like they've failed. So of course they are going to push for as much power as they can get - they also get bigger budgets, better toys, safer work environment, greater say in policy, etc. etc. All arms of the bureaucracy work this way. A leader - notice I say leader, not politician - is supposed to find the best balance between a reduction of liberty, cost to the tax payer and security for the nation. However the rational path for the pollie is to err on the side of caution. It's better to be some one who spent too much money on security and maybe infringed a little on the general liberties of the country and really screwed a few people over than be the guy that was too soft on security and was at the wheel when a serious attack occurred. That's the general play of things and if you give it some thought with an open mind it makes sense. That doesn't mean what I'm saying is perfect and definitely the reality. For all I truly know we may be run by lizard people from hollow earth. However what I'm saying is completely rational and very easily the reality.
I have trouble believing that politicians want ultimate control and virtual enslavement. That sounds more like a means than an ends. I mean what would they get out of locking us down and being able to look in to every facet of our existence? I can't think of a rational reason as to why that would be attractive to them. Better to shape society to bring them wealth and power to they can secure access to resource to make themselves luxuriant and safe. If they have a political or religious ideology that they get to push that too. I can't see any politician in the liberal democratic world who is so ideological/religious that locking us down completely would benefit their cause. Just doesn't fit together.
As for profiteering from wars, well duh. Welcome to the world, Russell. Shit has been happening since day dot and it always surprises me how shocked and outraged people get when they realise this for the first time (although, I wasn't born with this knowledge myself, I remember being shocked and outraged when I was 18 as well). Although saying that the current operations in the Mid East are solely for the sake of profit and capitalism is just ludicrously naive. Russell completely lost all credibility when he went there.
