Radicalisation, Religion & Recognition (Lawrence Krauss) - Q&A | 29 June 2015

good evening and welcome to Q&A I'm Tony Jones and here to answer your questions tonight the deputy opposition leader Tanya Plibersek Human Rights Commissioner and classical liberal Tim Wilson one of Australia's most experienced journalists the editor-at-large of the Australian poor Kelly Curtin unis counterterrorism expert dr. and Ally and cosmologists and passionate advocate for science and reason Lawrence Krauss please welcome our panel as you may have noticed - about advertised gifts parliamentary secretary Allen touch and the director of the Menzies Research Centre Nikita withdrew at the last minute now we find ourselves in an unusual situation tonight because clearly one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the past week has been about events that occurred on our own programme we've been the subject of a great deal of comment from politicians and from other media the ABC itself has acknowledged that an error was made in having mr. Zaki mullah live in the studio and as we go to air tonight there is more than one inquiry underway it's clear therefore that the issue will come up for discussion tonight and we'll do our best to handle that in the same way we would any other issue others can and will no doubt judge this program and the ABC and my role tonight is not to preempt that or to put any particular view but it is appropriate to put a few facts on the record first of all the decisions made about QA are made by the whole programme and management team and we all take responsibility for them in considering the decision to allow Zaki mullah to ask a question the ABCs editorial standards tell us to present a diversity of perspectives so that over time no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded nor disproportionately represented now secondly the safety and security of our panelists and the audience is always a key priority for us and finally the QA team were not aware at the time Zaki mallet appeared of the very offensive misogynistic tweet that he put out about two female journalists have we known we would have rejected his participation now let's move on with the program and your questions and our first question tonight is in fact a Facebook question that comes from Freddie Warren Q&A featured a self-described Muslim activist who tweeted about gang raping female columnist in January and pleaded guilty to threatening to kill an azo officer does Q&A think the views of the man who suggested gang rape were worthwhile and we'll start with Tanya Plibersek hmm well I think I think it clearly was an error of judgment tiny and the ABC has said that and said it very quickly the following morning I think given the very offensive tweet that you've just referred to and some of the history of mr. Malla it was an error of judgment but I think we also have to be quite careful of the way that the government has responded I think some of the response has been really quite emotional in its tone and not not productive I don't always like what the ABC broadcasts I've had a three very uncomfortable Tuesday nights over the last few weeks and what I'd say about the ABC is even when I don't agree with it I see that it does a really important job and plays a very worthwhile role in our community so I'd say it was an error of judgment I don't think mr. Mellors views our ones that I particularly want to see broadcast but I'd also caution people who are you know I've already cut half a billion dollars of funding from the ABC you've cut the Australia Network completely caution that further attacks on the ABC are not helpful let's quickly address the other issue raised here the fact that mr. Malla pleaded guilty more than 10 years ago to threatening to kill an azo officer should that conviction have ruled him out as a questioner in and of itself look I think that's a very difficult proposition and in fact Anne's written a lot about encountering violent extremism the voices of people who've been dear addict alized and how important they are in the debate so I couldn't make that judgment without knowing a lot more about him and his beliefs and his behavior and what he said in the past but I do think it is important to take into account we are in a heightened threat environment that's not make-believe that is actually true and so when you're airing voices that are arguing for extremist causes or behavior you need to be very cautious I thought well Lee Daly's interview with Sachi Miller the following day it was a very good interview because he pushed mr. Malla significantly on his own responsibility for what he was saying and I think that was a very appropriate you mentioned an ally there let's hear from her on the subject well first of all I think that let's get it very straight nobody in the history of mankind has ever or will ever be radicalized by anything that zakir Muller has said we are not about to see a mass exodus to Syria because of a public stash between a minister and somebody wearing a funny hat on cue a let's make that clear secondly I think it was a missed opportunity because I think the Australian public deserves to hear a rational debate about issues of national security and issues of national significance that affect them and I think that that debate should happen without any political grandstanding and without any over emotional outbursts as happened on the Q&A show I think it was a missed opportunity for the minister in question to respond rationally to zacky's question and to open up a debate that needs to be had these questions need to be asked and the Australian public deserve answers and they deserve answers in a rational logical calm manner I think you know we need to stand up as a public here as Australians and say we deserve better than this we deserve to have these issues brought to our attention and we deserve to have the answers to these questions free from political point-scoring finally because the questioner is not in the studio to ask this I'll ask it on his behalf let's go back to the question do you think the views of the man who suggested gang rape are worthwhile not that we knew about it at the time look I didn't know about his tweet about gang rape either and my understanding was that that was a tweet that was very quickly taken down and you know I've seen some pretty disgusting things by a whole lot of people on Twitter and some of them directed at me and some of them directed at some people that I know as well and not to excuse that at all absolutely there is no excuse and so I think that had the ABC and Q & A know and about that particular tweet I think that my understanding is that you probably wouldn't have had him on as you mentioned earlier Tony in terms of his being a convicted a criminal he's done his time he's er he's paid his price we are a society that recognizes that we are a society that recognizes that people who who have done their time and who have the capacity to then turn around deserve a chance and I think we should show that in in all forms of public life let's hear from Paul Kelly on this oh come to you in a minute Lawrence look I think this is not an issue of free speech as Mark Scott our pretended our last week this was a serious editorial mistake by the ABC media organizations are going to be very careful about who they put up in lights about who they give a platform to and it would have been possible to have a lot of other Muslims in the audience raising these sorts of issues the ABC chose not to do that I found it extraordinary that we're being told today that he would not have been asked on the program if people had known what he said in terms of his sexist and misogynist past and the threats had made about female journalist were told that that would have ruled him out of the program but the fact that he had been prosecuted with terrorism the fact that he had admitted that he threatened Australian officials and wanted to kill them the fact that he'd served time did that he had a weapons arsenal that he was conducting a campaign to publicize Jihad nonetheless that's okay well it's not okay it's not okay in terms of the ABC taking a decision about who's going to appear on Q&A and who is going to confront a government minister a government minister about citizenship policy although can I just interrupt you there back in 2012 September your own paper ran a story about malla headlined rebel urges Muslims to wage a jihad of peace now I imagine you're aware of the content of that story I'm that story but that story that story is a separate issue from giving him a platform giving him a platform on this program as I said can oh can i Dakotas just sorry briefly can I just quickly go to a point that was in the story so the story in your paper said his experience going to Syria Syria had showed that hate and violence were self-defeating the more you fight the more you lose says mallet in the story the more you have hatred this anger the more you feel victimized now would it have been wrong with the program makers to take that into account when forming a judgment about him no I don't think it would have been wrong but I'd make two points about what you've just said I am very well aware that the most effective form of persuading people against going to Iraq and Syria is to have jihadist to have repented and to expose them to people who want to go to Iraq and Syria I'm very well aware that this is an enormous ly effective tool to persuade people against it but this is not this is not why he was on the program he was on the program not to have as far as I'm concerned not to have a proper debate about the issue this was a gotcha moment this was a tabloid gotcha moment he was picked out to embarrass the government on this issue and in that sense he had the wrong background the fact that he'd repented I think is very good but I don't think that excuses the choice made at the time let's get a quick response from an ally on that very question what I'm hearing is that he's good enough for your paper but he's not good enough for Q&A no no no our paper our paper didn't put him up on lights because we're not able to do that the way the ABC did on this program and count oppose him against the government to embarrass the government over citizenship Lord it was no response that created the ongoing thing it was virtually NexStar had the minister or the parliamentary secretary I'm sorry had he responded in a manner where actually answered Zaki's question i doubt that the the situation would have been blown out of proportion as it had has been and that's why i say it was a missed opportunity and why I think Australians deserve better to hear about these issues in manner in a manner that is free from political grandstanding okay Lawrence Krauss is trying to jump in though because I came is from outside I have to say in terms of make make a platform for this guy seems to me the government has made the platform I wouldn't have known who he was I wouldn't have heard about him if I hadn't arrived in this country and seen all this stuff about this guy and then I went and watched the question and the question was kind of silly and innocuous the in terms of embarrassing the government it seemed to me the government did a good job embarrassing itself the response of that Minister was ridiculous moreover I mean this was I wrote a book about something from nothing it seems to me that you've proved it's possible and and and and the last thing I want to say is his some of his views which I've looked at since enter clear despicable but in a society we have to be willing to have discussions about despicable views and I was amazed I was on this program speaking of despicable views with the Fred Niall of a few years ago and no one wrote headline stories saying that a hateful person who has not much Sajha mystic views but anti-gay views was allowed on a program he was allowed we had a discussion a relatively polite discussion but at least it raised in my mind the ridiculousness of his opinions and a reasonable discussion could have raised the ridiculousness of this guy's okay Tim Wilson I'd like to hear your view on this and reflect on the question that was originally asked if you can well I'll be brutally honest I actually think the producers in yourself Tony adore be ashamed of yourself for giving them a platform the issue at heart is the ABC chose to give this person a platform on live television precisely as Paul was outlining and people would have their own views about issues and no one is calling for this individual to be silenced or censored no one is called for that I think Anna I think just just just doesn't qualify no just a qualifying point I think the minister on the night did say he would quite like to see him to port yeah he did that just not silence all sent to him everybody's I'm sure I'm not sure how it does I mean he's still welcome to speak so I'm simply making the point there that that that view would be seen by some as being out of order as well the citizen a citizen should be expelled from the country well and the Minister has expressed himself I'm bringing it back to the root of the issue which is what the ABC did it chose to give him a live platform to express a view it is bad because it denied the opportunity for somebody who was sensible and rational and credible to actually talk about the serious points around citizenship that exists in Australia and around those laws which I have except myself expressed genuine concerns about but for then the ABC to turn it into some sort of free speech issue and try and project it as though the ABC had made just a simple error of judgment and invoke the idea that people that this was akin to the Charlie Hebdo massacre I found laughable and contemptuous of the substance of the issue at heart and I thought it was actually a tragedy that the marks God chose to go and do it that way and actually in essence mocked the memory of those people and what they actually stood and died for and to be brutally honest Tony when I first came in this program in 2008 it was an environment where we had serious policy discussion too often these days it's caught up with gotcha moments and snide remarks designed to get attention extra attention the news cycle and that is what that was and it blew back on this show and to its detriment let's go to our next question which is on the same subjects from Michael Daley although the Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression the High Court has held that there is an implied freedom of political communication therefore while I disagree with the comments made by zakir mela last week we have an obligation to honor his right to save them however as a result of what he said members of our community could have been encouraged to join an uprising against Australia if that were the case and my safety were to be jeopardized would you consider restricting freedom of speech where do you draw the line between protecting free speech and defending national security and Tim Wilson I'll start with you I know we ended with you but I'll start with you on that free speech question well the individual rational is joining Isis off the back of an exchange I think his comments were poor I don't think the exchange was particularly edifying for anybody to be brutally honest but I think it was good that the Minister also gave a strong message back but the practical reality is nobody by the way the minister took his comments to mean that the government's policies he was that the questioner was arguing that the government's policies would push people towards Isis is that as an assessment you agree with well no I was about to actually make the precise point which I agree nobody's probably gone off the back of his comments and gone off and joined Isis because know what do you what did you think the comment oh this is my point that the Minister thought the comments were about government policies pushing people towards Isis what do you think the comments were about well I think his comments were about precisely what he said which is he thought that the policy of the government was rationalizing or justifying people golfing and joining Isis that was what he clearly expressed I don't think that is what the consequence was I think we need a very serious issue around discussion around citizenship but you know I've been quoted about this in the past week I think as soon as his comments were aired it was quite clear that he was putting a bluntly a bit of a nutter I don't think anyone would have taken them that seriously but that is not the issue the issue is why the ABC gave this person on live television a platform to exercise his views and express it because in the end people have a certain credibility test about whether they should appear on these programs and I don't think he passes it and I question why the ABC did a lawrence krauss agenda I want to respond to the actual question which was free speech versus national security and this actually concerns about this whole issue which ever hasn't been touched and probably the first time I disagreed with you pecan yeah but anything but this since I've come here I've seen story about sorry so I looked at the Australian today and was every story was about how I should be scared by terrorism and it seems to me this notion that national security is so so threatened but by actually very few people having actually been threatened in Australia that it's scaring people and and I can't help but think remembering an a line of actually Herman Goering who said democracy dictatorship doesn't matter you want to make people do what you wanted to do make them afraid and I find this this attitude that's happening here of getting people afraid of terrorism so afraid do you can't even talk about it on TV I find that terrifying and eliwood official can you address me the question I because the perception of that questioner and it's Subsection of a lot of people including many politicians is that that was a call to young Muslims to go and join a jihad to join Isis is that how you understood what he was saying okay I don't think exact he was very good at expressing himself he's certainly not very articulate in that regard but I think the crux of what he was saying was that very much so that the government policies are alienating young people to the point that they are contributing to radicalization now if I was to respond to Zaki I would say to him very rationally that okay that can't be that that that is not the singular point upon which radicalization occurs and in fact to to simplify to oversimplify radicalization to one dimension that it's only about Western intervention or it's only about government policies or it's only about this or it's only about that is fundamentally flawed radicalization is in fact a very complex issue and of course government policies play into it but it is part of the part of the puzzle you know every student of terrorism 101 know straight away that counterterrorism that in an asymmetric warfare environment the enemy seeks to force governments to do things that alienate and that cause their populations to turn against them and become part of the the enemies community or the enemies groups so terrorism 101 the first thing that you do is you don't play into the enemy's hands and unfortunately when issues like national security become so politicized that they do become part of a political agenda this plays in to Isis hands the things that we end up doing in restricting civil liberties even the removal of citizenships we need to ask what is the endgame here is the endgame to defeat Isis because if the end game is to defeat Isis you're playing right into their hands the first thing that they do with their propaganda is tell young people to reject their Australian citizenship to reject their Australian identity the first thing that they do when they get over there is burn their passports and and forget that they were ever Australian why are we doing that for them how is that how is that part of defeating Isis it's not just counterproductive it's futile the the questioner clearly understood what Zakir malla said to be different to what you think he said I mean how do you explain the discrepancy is it simply a matter of poor English poor expression or I mean how do you explain that I mean you know Zakir Mellor I do III I know Zakir and I've worked with a lot of formers performers being people who were either once jihadists or white supremacists who once were part of these organizations or who once had certain ideological viewpoints and when you talk to them not all of them are so far along their journey that they're able to articulate how they were in their past life and and why they left their past life some of them are still going through that process some of them are still suffering the trauma of who they were and coming to terms with that some of them are very articulate and they've moved through that journey and they've been able to reconcile that and are very strong advocates and very strong activists and a very politically savvy and very media savvy and and and know how to put their ideas and their thoughts and their expressions across zakir isn't there yet he would be if he had support Paul Kelly and we can address the question if we can in fact I'll come back to the question in a minute if you'd like to hear whether you are hearing something different than you originally understood or whether you'd like to add to the conversation ah no I'd rather not yet okay just in relation to this perfect package the issue here is not free speech it is not free speech he's got the right to free speech whenever and wherever he goes the issue here just to come back to the central point about the program was he was invited on the program I believe to create and inflammatory exchange and that's precisely what happened he was not invited on to the program to have a sensible debate about these issues now in relation to the issue that you've talked about I agree completely with the need to engage jihadist particularly jihadists who have repented I think they are enormous ly valuable to the cause where I disagree with you I think it's a mistake to say in order to ensure that we don't alienate such people we are therefore not entitled to pass new national security laws advised by the security and intelligence services advised by the government embraced by the government supported by the Labor Party a whole range of security laws including the citizenship laws now to actually say sorry we're not going to do any of these things that are recommended by the security and intelligence agencies simply because we are concerned about the effect that it will have on some of the potential jihadists I think I think that's wrong we've got to get the balance right I didn't know you're not into ordering is from a pure counterterrorism perspective from a pure counterterrorism perspective free of politics free of emotion free of anything else to play into Isis's hands and do what they want you to do is counterproductive this is logic it is not it's not politics it's not anything else it is logic okay you want to be I don't play I want to hear what whither Tanya Plibersek agrees with that logic has expressed look there was a terrific article in I think it was there Milland Tech Graham would what Isis really well I just really want yeah a few months ago maybe March April and I thought it is actually to read that article and to get some sort of insight into just how completely disjointed our worldviews are is really instructive the question about the citizenship laws that Paul has raised is a separate question in January last year Tony Abbott and the government started talking about stripping people of their citizenship it's taken them 15 or 16 months Paul to bring legislation to the Parliament it was rushed in in the final days of the last sitting period we were refused briefings until the last minute and while the Liberal government were calling on labour to be bipartisan they were sending out fundraising emails on the back of this legislation they were dragging camera crews through Azio headquarters and the leak question time briefs showed that the government were all about actually having as big a gap between themselves as labour and labor as possible so I think you it's unfair of you to suggest and that that she's positing some you know the government can't act on national security unless we make terrorists angry it is a fundamental issue our national security is the most important baseline proposition for any government and for any opposition the security and welfare of our people is our first and most important responsibility but for the government to set this up in some way as they're in favor of that safety and security and and anybody who questions demands detail asks for for example in our case the joint security and intelligence committee to examine legislation is somehow not on Team Australia that's a problem well I certainly agree with what you're saying there there's no doubt that the government is mobilizing this issue for domestic political purposes and the language is unacceptable the point remains though tenure is the government legislation correct or not will labor support it or vote against it well that's the issue at the end of all degrees despite what has already been said we actually are able to debate national security legislation and that is partly why it ends up on the front page of the paper because it's topical because the factory the first time it ended up on the front page I think was when there was a disputing cabinet about it sure unless president that he was saucer brand script there was that be precise in your instance we we are able to debate it because proposals are put up they are considered and they are rejected now the process about whether it came from cabin or not is to me irrelevant if they hadn't have addressed those issues we still would have had a discussion but to say nobody died it is good what we have had this debate because nothing else we have had a significant downscaling of the proposal because going precisely to the point that was raised before you do not want to do the job of terrorist groups in the process of trying to design national security laws which is why we have to stand up and defend very strongly the principle of the rule of law and making sure that laws are structured well but then we have got to a much better stand we are still not there there are still provisions but within the parent and you have to be scattered yet this minister said as I listened to the program and you just defend him that he would deport this guy for saying stupid things is that now she can't really do stupid things he said it was because he had threatened the lives of azo officers and what I was saying he was taking incorrectly he said incorrectly that that has been glossed over as well that Zaki was um was acquitted because of because the law was retrospective which is not true he was avoided because it was found innocent Tony I think Tim said something a minute ago that that was very important he said it doesn't matter how it happens it doesn't matter whether it went to cabinet and I know didn't success what I said was it didn't matter that it was leaked out of cabinet first the proposal being made public no will it easy to say I would say to him that it is if you do not have good cabinet processes this should have gone to cabinet as a piece of legislation not as a thought bubble it should have been debated by the cabinet and possibly by the National Security Committee of cabinet before it went to cabinet there was a decision taken there was no Security Committee of cabinet there was no legislation until this week there was you just you feel debate and I feel talking about the cabinet procedures I'll tell you what happened we made well to the National Security Committee of Calvin a decision was taken a decision was taken now normally that surfaces the Prime Minister then raised the issue at the end of a cabinet meeting and that provoke this substantial debate or can I just can I take a carrot asking a question and it is this as I recall it as a key mother's question went to whether or not a soul citizen could be caught up in these laws and then on the front page of the Australian this weekend as suggestion that that might happen so I'm just wondering whether there was a relevance to the question that he asked you mean he was prescient look well I'm asking whether the question was relevant to people who are soul citizens who may be charged as terrorists well the question may be relevant I'm not saying the question is not relevant I'm simply saying it was inappropriate for him to be here at the time look look but if his question is relevant doesn't that sort of slightly undermine that position no I don't think so I don't think so look look to be brutally honest and you could have found much bit of representives in the Muslim communities issues then that would always be better represented by this question was wrong can I just make the point it's gonna be rather tense can I do can I just make it what a pickle I miss being doing the Muslim community prank you know just mean you know just make the point present can I just make the point can I just make the point sorry that the the fundamental purpose of this program is to allow citizens to ask questions of course ourselves and he asked his question he enrolled to come into the program it's not quite as you said well it's not good sorry you organized when to ask a question and this is no that's incorrect sorry the fact the matter is you didn't have a question pre written up like everybody else does yeah this is this idiot he did write a question yes that's right and was through through the questions in the normal process is the fact of the matter is you should not have been given a platform there are much better representatives to debate the issues of citizenship why don't you give it to me about representatives here Muslim communities don't have representatives no and and just because someone stands up and says the Muslim community doesn't mean that everyone thinks that they are the the the sole icon of what it means to be Muslim in Australia so you know the whole idea that first of all he's doing this because he's a member of the Muslim community a representative of the Muslim community you can forget that because he's not he never even said he was it was a question about himself yeah well I was in May it was a session why I had this happen to me I'm representing myself how would you respond that and he got a ridiculous idiotic response I was a silly question the question was incoherent okay mr. way all right so he seems to further demonstrate the ABC doesn't actually get what they did um will well well you're on the panel so you can make comments let's not take that as a comment on ously it is a comic and next question is from Mike honey ball um a lot of Australians feel nothing but contempt and betrayal towards Australians who would go overseas and join extremist groups like Isis how do we reconcile that fact with the need to implement good policy that involves you know people who've been overseas and been involved in these sorts of you know atrocities and come back and actually realize the error of their ways in other words how do we implement good de-radicalization policy when both sides of politics seem to be playing to the most base instincts within the community and Ali we'll start with you it's your Arabic good question good question I think before we start talking about D radicalization we need to revisit what we mean by radicalization radicalization has become a blanket term to describe a whole range of different processes levels behaviors that are seen to be indicative of a particular mindset and importantly a willingness and an intention to commit violence and that's not always the case you know we we we rely on models of radicalization that are very hypothetical in fact most of what you hear about radicalization in the media is mired in myth in a hypothesis and in in in theory and in misconceptions a lot of it is not true there are a lot of misconceptions around radicalization and we need to get that right before we start talking about de-radicalization particularly because the current wave that we're seeing of young people going overseas to fight is very different from what it was five years ago very different from what it was ten ago and the process by which they are changing their worldview and the ideological outlet outlook to the point where they are willing to go overseas to commit acts of violence is a very different process today than it was 10 years ago yet we're still relying on models that were developed ten years ago based on very little empirical evidence very little empirical evidence can I just do is it is it in fact true I've seen it reported that you were in the process of recruiting Zaki mullah to be part of adi radicalize the radicalization program not adi radicalization program we did reach out to him through my NGO people against violent extremism because we utilize the voices of formers both former white supremacists and former jihadists and formers from different ideological groups we utilized their voices as a way of challenging the the ideology of violent extremist groups so yes we had reached out to zakir and we will continue to reach out to zakian we continue to put out an invitation to zakir to come work with us and to help him and support him in in articulating his views because you know yeah he said some shitty stuff okay but he's also said some really good stuff too and you know the shitty stuff that he says it's because he's he's not groomed he's not media savvy and he's not politically savvy but he could be a really strong voice and a really powerful voice he just needs the right kind of support Paul Kelly well I think it's very very valuable as I said earlier on to mobilize jihadis who have repented I think they can be enormous ly effective in dissuading people to go to Iraq and Syria but look I guess the wider point I'd make about this debate we're having Tony I think I think the ABC has got to pick up the signals it's getting from Malcolm Turnbull who wants to help this organization and I think it's a mistake for ABC to close ranks defend the program live by a tokenistic apology and not take any substantive follow-up action substantive follow-up action by the ABC about this issue and this program is required and I think this is a question of leadership of the ABC that goes to the managing director that goes to the chairman and it goes to the board now these aren't just my views these are very widespread views I support the ABC I want to see a strong vibrant independent impartial ABC this concept is in real trouble at the moment and if the leadership of the ABC is not savvy enough and smart enough to realize this and recognize that it's got to take some serious decisions about this issue then that's going to be I think a very disappointing outcome for everybody all you did go off the question there but since you have so far I'd like to get Tony ploobis actors to respond to that one say Malcolm Turnbull's such a great friend of the ABC's cut 500 million dollars from its budget I don't think that's the test and yeah I don't think we use I don't think we use how many dollars are spent on the ABC as the ultimate test of one's support for the ABC as a minister given the current fiscal situation it's not the only way I keep wanting to go back to the question actually and and the ne and I was fascinated by response and one of the things he said that I thought was really important is that you also work with white supremacist yeah and you know there was an article that just came out the United States newspapers had said actually people in the United States are much more threatened by right-wing extremists and by jihadis they don't well the same is true in Australia but I would be surprised you know everyone focuses on this one area that sort of leaves out September 11 yeah since 9/11 there have been more deaths from white supremacist forms of violent extremism in the u.s. then there have been from jihadist and everyone is focused focusing on the jihadis but I don't know if the situation the same in Australia I would suggest they're probably white supremacist here in this and the question is is there as much a threat to the average Australian because of that okay I'm sorry but it is time to move on to other topics so we do have some other questions this one comes from either Kleber Mike what my question is for Tanya Plibersek the ABCs documentary the killing season showed the way Julia Gillard was treated as the first female Prime Minister and highlighted that Bill Shorten lied about his role in her demise do you think the next female prime minister will be treated better and if so should bill short and now step aside and let you take over as thanks Ava and I'll just go to the question of not telling the truth first we've got a prime minister who went into an election campaign saying no cuts to health no cuts to education no cuts to the ABC or SBS no change to pensions and no new taxes and he's broken every single one of those promises I don't think Bill Shorten was making a promise he was making a series of bland statements or denials in a radio interview are you at all disturbed and I know how easily he lied under those circumstances as he's your leader Tony I think when there's a whole lot of turmoil in a political party you don't want to be the person who's pouring petrol on that turmoil so and I just confirm what you're saying there that lying under those circumstances is acceptable for a politician I never think lies acceptable Tony I don't I never think lying is acceptable but it's understandable when there's a whole lot of chaos that you don't want to contribute more to the chaos I think the fundamental question of keeping faith with the Australian people goes to a prime minister who's cut all the things he said he wouldn't cut he went into an election campaign saying that taxes would be lower under them spending would be lower under them and we've got higher taxes higher spending higher debt higher deficit higher unemployment lower consumer confidence slower economy and slower wages growth that's the record Paul Kelly well look um I think I might just say about her about the program Tony I think this was a brilliant program we're not talking about Q&A now this was the ABC at its best I am sure that's what Tony Abbott said in power well he did he did it I think I think a lot of people felt that look let's get to substantive issue the question this is a really difficult area for politicians my own view is that political morality is different to personal morality I know people won't want to hear that they won't want to believe it it's the truth I'm delighted to hear tenure say that it's never acceptable to tell lies in politics well that is a wonderful idea but but but most politicians from time to time are in a situation where if they don't lie they have to fudge they have to fudge a now that is the reality of politics I'd like to see I'd like to see more integrity in the political system I think Bill Shorten in that particular interview was guileless I mean he should not have been caught out like that he should have been much smarter much clever are you saying he's a poor liar well well yes yes is the answer to that question but politicians are got to learn how to dissemble effectively how to lie I lie better I guess yeah no no there's a difference between assembling effectively and outright lying Bill Shorten was caught our broad line it's interesting distinction do you think the public gets it no the public no the public expect a wall-to-wall integrity in politics and I think that's good I mean it's important to have very very high public standards but I know how difficult it is I know how difficult it is given the completing responsibilities that politicians have given us do you honestly think the public expects politicians not to lie no no I'm sorry I think they all assume polity I mean yeah anyway I've got all the qualification that you had to have yeah I think well apparently the qualification is you need to do it better I compare or dissemble I think worlds I think the Australian public is very realistic and cynical about politicians having said that I also think the Australian public impose a severe penalty on politicians and even the politician is caught up that isn't it so that's a I just want to finish this section by asking you do you think bill short more power series penalty for me called out lying on this occasion I think he'll pay a degree of penalty for being caught out on this issue but I don't think this is going to be a decisive this this particular question I don't think this will be decided for him the problem bill shortens got is there's a question mark about what he believes there's a question mark about his underlying convictions and beliefs simply because he looks too expedient he's changed his mind on too many issues in particular of course in terms of the leadership under the previous government okay we're going to move on we've got another questions from Keenan Fitzsimmons professor Lawrence Krauss I'm you H student and I'd love to be sure career in the field of theoretical physics or cosmology I'm also a devout Catholic and have a very strong faith I am particularly interested in black holes and where we are situated in the universe the great physicist Albert Einstein once said science without religion is lame religion without science is blind do you believe there is a place in this world where both science and religion can be compatible and work side by side and that's a Kenan Fitz Symons apologies uh go ahead well it's a good question first of all I applaud your interest in that area and I encourage you to continue it independent of your beliefs because the great thing about science is it the black holes exist or not whether or not you believe in God it's it that's the wonderful thing about science God's kind of irrelevant your beliefs are don't really matter and that's why there are scientists of all sorts some were devout Catholics some who great many who don't believe I think that when you say can science or religion be compatible it's a it's a complex question because religion is a very diffuse thing when people often take that remark of Einstein's Einstein also said that the god of organized religion is a fairy tale is a myth is silly and people should give it up like they did Santa Claus I mean he so his his view of religion was more he was sort of a spinosum kind of religion where the notion that there's order in the universe and we should revere that order in the universe he never believed in a in a creator that had any personal interest in anyone so when you talk about religion you have to be more careful the vague notion that the universe is amazing and maybe somehow that gives you meaning that's not incompatible with sign what is incompatible sciences the doctrines of all the world's organized religions those are incompatible scientists ask you a quick question would you take the view that science has not proven that God doesn't exist it could never prove and that God is science can never disprove God because you know I could say that God created us here 12 seconds ago how could I disprove that with all with the memories of the wonderful discussion that we just had you know cuz it was God's kind of sadistic Billy hey it'll be all Mike some way we've seen that before and so I could never disprove that so science can never disprove that I'll show God but the really interesting question is that we make it seem as if some sorry this question of God is important to science it's irrelevant most scientists don't even think about God enough to know if they're atheists when you when you go in the laboratory you're working in the laboratory and when devoutly Christian or what or Jewish or whatever and I know have many friends who are deeply religious when they go in the laboratory God goes out the window so your religious beliefs should be separate from your instance science and but it is disingenuous and although it offends people it's disingenuous to argue that the doctrines the world's organized religions are consistent with science because they're not all right um and Ellie what do you think about this uh talking about science and black holes and stuff hurts my head we shall talk later okay do you believe do you believe in a creator let's put it that way I believe in a creator but that's my personal belief and I believe that belief is very personal so I believe that a creator for some people is God for some people it's yellow for some people it's Allah for some people it's it's it's whatever organized religion tells you it is but I also think that for some people it's this incredible energy that is out there in the universe that binds us all together and that you know oh my god it kept the Allah and all they all can't be right right so so either either one of them all right no but they are all right because there is something bigger than us and you but it's not all right it's not Jesus and it's not Moses and it's not I mean the point is every seven a program before every person of deep faith is an atheist about every other religion well it is whatever you want it to be and I you know like I I go for walks sometimes or I work in my garden and it's really hard to look around you and see all this wonderful stuff around you and not believe that there's something bigger than up than us well there is it there's a galaxy in this club I know I'm bringing for Kelly here called Europe you're a man of faith so um what are you what are your reflections you don't know a lot about my faith I presume you're our believer of God okay well I do think there's a greater force I am a believer in a greater force I think that religion and science are separate I think they can endure together I agree completely that when a scientist goes into the laboratory all is interested in his science not religion I understand that completely but I think the two are very different domains one is the domain of reason the other is the domain of faith and I don't think there's anything inherently incompatible between Tim Wilson well I don't broadly disagree with what Paul just said the key thing I would add though is that when you get to the frontiers of science and you see these in discussions around artificial intelligence and issues around genetics and an innovation that morality which often comes from religion can inform people's perspectives about what's right is equally amazed when people say morality comes from religion I think most people's morality comes from rationality they claim it comes from religion and that's the real problem religion is usurped this notion that somehow it has a monopoly on morality if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't go out and kill your neighbor the next day your that comes from a sense of rationality and empathy with others it doesn't come from religion and people claim a dozen people often say they're religious just because they think if they say they're not people will think they're bad people and that's the real problem today I say ken come from religion morality has different components oh and people have ethics and moral dimensions which what does it the old one most immoral books ever written the key point is when you get to the frontiers of science issues around religion can inform how people approach the exploration and that is always a tension because being somebody who is in the faith I'm always in favor of seeing how far we can take scientific progress I accept that there are limits and we have to assess and make proper judgment calls about making sure or not to make taking so much religion says that being gay is evil and science can show there's nothing no empirical basis for that you say there's no inconsistency well it's not about it's these people are entitled to their views well even if you won't be with them that's what happens if religion eyes for many people their religion tells them something that's manifestly wrong or we should accept that or just not say it's silly now of course your legislation in fact I suppose if you're very mean when you when you say people are entitled to their views of course there once again Tony Jones you have used this platform to make a snide remark and aside rather than actually addressing the fundamental issue other than most of your you're assuming what I was going to title to their views whether the national broadcaster gives it a platform is entirely different okay then she blurred title reviews but the whole point is we're entitled to find the reduce views ridiculous and what amazes me no but what amazes me is is that in our society we're entitled to tack politicians we're title to make fun of sex we're entitled to make fun of everything else but the minute you suggest that the views of of the Pope are absolutely silly suddenly you're viewed as strident and inappropriate and the point is there should be nothing that's sacred everything should be open the debate including religion no one's disputing at this time well when I hear from tenure to the SEC on the question of religion and science well I like Lawrence's books very much and especially the science of Star Trek one um I guess I'm almost the exact opposite to each of were the two of you I don't think that there's a life after death I don't think there's a heaven or hell but I believe deeply and profoundly in some of the lessons that Lawrence says that it's not religion its morality but religion is a really good way of describing and telling stories to people and sometimes good sometimes not so good you know yeah that's true it can be quite damaging to I accept that but you know I went to church every Sunday as a kid and the things that sunk in for me were judged not lest ye be judged pull the plank out of your own eye before you reach for the splinter and your brothers the story of the Good Samaritan Sir Frederick oz and I'm saying that charity is pouring oil on the wounds of the traveler but justice is preventing the attack in the first place actually sitting there for an hour a week and thinking through the way you want to live your life is perhaps a bit of a luxury in a busy mall world III agree completely with what you're saying but the question is does it I think we it would be great to sit and have a you know every Sunday talk about quantum mechanics to but yeah but uh I would do that in jail are it's I would say we should I think what you've Illustrated is a really key point many people who call themselves religious one way another what they do is they pick and choose the things that appeal to them and they and they throughout the rest and most of the rest is the real doctrine you know most them don't believe when you eat a wafer that it turns into the body of Christ but they're but but they like some of the things they read so most people really aren't really Christians what they are as they like some of the things they read in the Bible and and they identify with that and it makes it and it makes them more acceptable in the rest of society to identify with that okay actually can I just you can't do it and I think that that actually might be a bit of a difference between American society and Australian society okay and don't think about for example if you were an American society you wouldn't have said what you said earlier about being an odd lever and expect to become a leader of the country well it's absolute true it's now I was so impressed with you saying that because in true in the United States you know there's been a study in Americans of it being atheist is is though it is viewed on the level as being a rapist it's the same thing it's um well that's good time to do this the next question is from Jackie Holly how long do you think it will be before a long-overdue referendum is put to the Australian people to recognize the rights of indigenous people in the Constitution would you also support increased representation of indigenous people in the federal parliament as a further constitutional amendment Paul Kelly I'm very worried about the referendum I'm very committed to recognizing the indigenous peoples in the Constitution I think this is something we need to do as a country we need to repair the current constitution what I'm concerned about is I think that the lack of consensus on this issue is worse now than what it was four or five years ago when I look at the history of referendums in this country my own view is that the best way for this referendum to get up is for it to be a modest proposal to be an important symbolic proposal and to have a wide degree of bipartisanship on particularly discipline ala Pearson model effectively I'm not I'm not talking about the no Pearson model no no but I'm particularly disappointed with the report from the Joint Parliamentary Committee at the end of last week this is quite a radical document it wants to have a constitutional guarantee of racial non-discrimination I think that's got no chance of getting up whatsoever it's certainly unacceptable to the governing parties what we need to do is we need to rethink the issue we need to be realistic we need to recognize that as a country it's very important that we do this we've got to find a shared common ground rejecting those people on the right who say any referendum is unacceptable that that is putting race into the Constitution I reject that we've also got to reject a number of people and unfortunately a number of Aboriginal leaders who are built who are bidding up who are bidding up a very ambitious referendum which I think at the end of the day will be dead I just asked you we mentioned Knoll Pearson before and of course the question referred to special representation of some form for indigenous people in the Parliament now an old person was talking about something existing outside of the apart Parliament that a representative body advising the Parliament effectively do you reject that idea do you think that's too ambitious I don't think we can have that body in the Constitution I don't think that's going to work I don't think the people would vote for that I understand why Nowell is doing this Knoll is attempting to find some common ground he recognizes that this referendum is in serious difficulty I'm sympathetic to what he's trying to do I can't sign off on his actual proposals okay Tanya Plibersek there was suggestion there that both the major parties would reject the idea I think some of the ideas from the parliamentary Joint Committee including the specific prohibition against racial discrimination well I think we we have to look at that a lot more closely it pulls right to say that there shouldn't be a proposal that's guaranteed to fail it would be a disaster to have you think so n cannot saying that this is that because I'm just saying that the discussion about the question that is actually put all the questions that are put is I think the most important part of this if you can get if you can get a bipartisan campaign on this then a referendum would have a great deal a great chance of success so do you briefly this is just just - I'm sorry to interrupt you there but we're running out of time and I just like to get to the point here the the parliamentary Joint Committee is in fact wasn't bipartisan it is it's over yeah labor significant labor member and significant liberal member both indigenous they came up with the idea or the conclusion that was important to put into the Constitution a prohibition against racial discrimination and and they're done great work and thoughtful work and now we have to look at the report and take some time to examine it to discuss it more broadly and Tim Wilson well I think what the committee should have focused on is removing the existing race power rather than putting in the new non-discrimination provision but fundamentally we don't have a proposal whether it's the expert working groups panel proposal whether it's the one that was put up by the wire group or one that's put forward by an old person at the moment that I believe in its current form can be successful I think we have to start looking very clearly yet issues outside of the Constitution to drive Aboriginal advancement and working with my colleague the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice Commissioner Mick gooda we're doing is a significant project looking at how to capture the value of Aboriginal lands and indigenous lands to actually drive economic development that has a practical effect for Indigenous Australians Mick is working with Aboriginal leaders to try and resolve some sort of proposal that can work on a constitutional level but I would have thought that if you look at what is going to be put up and if it's going to be successful it has to appease Indigenous Australians constitutional conservatives and a group that's often ignored which is constitutional liberals which in the end makes the most part of the strain population and the window to get a proposal to do that I think is very challenging indeed and we don't have one of those them I'm afraid we're out of time we've just gone to time and that is all we have time for so please thank our panel Tanya Plibersek Tim Wilson Paul Kelly and Ali and next Monday next Monday on QA the deputy Nationals leader in minister for agriculture Barnaby Joyce shadow Immigration Minister Richard miles green senator Larissa waters leading News Corp commentator piers Ackerman and from the center of independent studies Tricia jar until next week's Q&A good night

Channel: abcqanda

Views: 96,587

Rating: 4.6237626 out of 5

Keywords: Q&A (TV Program), Talk Show (TV Genre), Religion (TV Genre), Science, Terrorism (Film Genre), Australian Broadcasting Corporation (TV Network), Q&A, QandA, auspol, australian politics, Tony Jones, politics, abc, abc news, Lawrence Krauss, Zaky Mallah

Id: h0rxnfv0mzg

Length: 61min 25sec (3685 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 29 2015