The last two weeks has seen a focus on terrorism by politicians and the media in Australia.

Of concern to all of us is the fact that terrorism may have some link to Australia, let alone Queensland.

The arrest and detention of Dr Haneef has demonstrated how our authorities intend to respond to any potential link.

Is the treatment of Doctor Haneef, and the response from our authorities, greater cause for concern for us?

The Prime Minister reminded us that there is a presumption of innocence several times during the detention of Dr Haneef. That presumption remains despite charges having been laid.

In my opinion, the treatment of Dr Haneef and has been more consistent with guilt rather than innocence.

Firstly, he was detained in the Brisbane Watchhouse where conditions are designed for those that have already been charged. We should house suspects before charge in unit type conditions, under guard of course.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, supression orders should be granted automatically. A suppression order would protect the name, photo and any other identifying particular from being published prior to a finding of guilt.

Media reports are suggesting that the evidence is based on Dr Haneef providing a SIM card to his relative.

If that is the case, the doctor's defence team have properly argued that the case is weak. He should be given his freedom and allowed to continue his life until the case proceeds.

Because we all know who he is, I suspect you may have mixed feelings if he becomes your doctor at the Gold Coast hospital should he be allowed to continue working.

In my opinion, we must safeguard the presumption of innocence and in doing so, take steps to protect a suspect until they are proven guilty. I intend to pursue greater protection for all accused persons.

What do you think? Is the presumption of innocence important to you? Or does national security override that principle.