But it doesn't matter about the particular powers being exercised does it? Even with the police powers to intercept possible terrorist activity early, the accused ultimately have to go through the court process and a jury. The principle is the same - go early and risk going too early (and then its a "infringement on civil liberties") or go late and risk getting it too late, with disastrous results.
I don't think your comment re the Brits' actions is supported by any evidence, is it? Did they know all the intelligence that the local cops etc were working under; the ramifications of 'blowing the whistle' at some particular time? Or were they just proposing a general aviation warning based on the intelligence they had? I don't think we know that, let alone if they were contemplating "publicly embarrassing" the Australian authorities.
How can you describe the Australian's actions or proposed timing as 'so wrong'? We don't know when they were proposing to raid or how advanced the accused planning was.
From what I can gather, the authorities had been monitoring this lot for quite a time and knew pretty much what the accused were doing. There appears to have been no imminent threat. We may never know if the timing of this raid was optimal, or if some associated players have now been tipped off and scattered, maybe to carry on their business later.
Care to support that assertion with any evidence of the Brits being 'so critical of our government's inaction'?
Do governments here decide timing of police raids?
