investig… · web viewyou know we are a christian country and i don't believe that islam is...

Investigation report no. BI-222Summary

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC

Type of service National broadcasting—television

Name of program Q&A

Date of broadcast 18 July 2016

Relevant code ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016)

Date finalised 28 September 2016

Decision No breach of Standard 4.1 [impartiality]

BackgroundIn August 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into the program Q&A.

The program was broadcast on ABC by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on 18 July 2016 at 9.35 pm.

The ACMA received a complaint alleging the presenter, Mr Tony Jones (Mr Jones) interjected, contradicted and undermined Ms Pauline Hanson’s (Ms Hanson) answers throughout the program.

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with Standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016) (the Code).

The programQ&A is a discussion program, described as:

... a rare opportunity for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national public forum and Q&A is broadcast live so that not only the studio audience but also the wider audience can get involved.

We aim to create a discussion that is constructive, that reflects a diverse range of views and that provides a safe environment where people can respectfully discuss their differences.1

On 18 July 2016, the program featured the following panellists:

Mr Sam Dastyari, the then Senator for New South Wales (Mr Dastyari)

Ms Pauline Hanson, Senator elect for Queensland (Ms Hanson)

Ms Larissa Waters, Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens (Ms Waters)

The Hon. Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training (Mr Birmingham)

Mr Nick Xenophon, Independent Senator (Mr Xenophon)

The panel discussion dealt with a range of topics including radicalisation, home-grown terrorism, Islam, the call for a Royal Commission to ban Muslims from coming to Australia as immigrants and the composition of Independent Senators in the 45th Parliament.

A transcript of the program is at Attachment A.

Assessment and submissionsWhen assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer to be:

1 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/about.htm, accessed on 9 September 2016.

ACMA Investigation report—Q&A broadcast on the ABC on 18 July 2016 2 of 37

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/about.htm

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.2

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

This investigation has taken into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and the ABC’s response to the complainant (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified as relevant.

Relevant Code provision Standard 4

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The code requires that this standard is interpreted and applied in accordance with the relevant principles, which include:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to

be expressed.

[…]

Impartiality does not require every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content; the circumstances in which the content is made and presented; the likely audience expectations of the content; the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious; the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide

opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

ReasonsTo assess compliance, the ACMA has considered the following:

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


contextual factors

the ABC’s hallmarks for impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention

to be expressed.

The complainant submitted:

Tony Jones interjected, contradicted and undermined her [Ms Hanson’s] answers throughout the show, whilst allowing questions obviously loaded to attempt to catch her out from both the audience and other participants.

The broadcaster submitted:

[…]

The program aired in the days immediately following the Nice terror atrocity and the program team has advised that most of the audience questions it received went to the panellists’ perspectives on radicalisation, terror and Islam. This was reflected in the questions selected for the program.

Q&A is a live and energetic program and the moderator plays an important role in managing and facilitating the discussion. As host of the program it is Tony Jones’ duty to ensure that audience members can put their questions to the panel and, as much as possible, have them answered. This will often include the host asking follow-up questions to draw out a more complete answer, and at times panellists will be interrupted to allow points to be clarified. These are routine aspects of the program and audiences can be expected to be familiar with this approach to moderation. Having reviewed the program, we are satisfied that the host’s moderation of the 18 July program demonstrated fair treatment and open-mindedness and was duly impartial.

[…]

The relevant standard requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.

Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the program’s themes, any editorial comments, the overall presentation of the material and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

Contextual factors

The program comprised a panel of newly elected politicians to discuss a wide range of topics relevant in the news such as home-grown radicalisation, terrorism, religion, and the composition of Independent Senators in Parliament. Of particular relevance was the terrorist attack carried out on Bastille Day in Nice, France, on 14 July 2016, several days prior to this broadcast. It was widely reported that the man responsible for carrying out the attack had been quickly radicalised prior to the attack.

At the date of broadcast, a discussion about home-grown radicalisation, among other related topics, was highly newsworthy. In a political context, these issues were also contentious. Given that Ms Hanson was a newly elected Senator who had expressed strong views about


Muslims and Islam3, there was naturally a significant amount of public interest in her views following the Bastille Day attack and terrorist acts in Australia.

Hallmarks of impartiality

The complaint is that Mr Jones was not impartial because he interjected, contradicted and undermined Ms Hanson’s answers throughout the program. He allowed the panel and studio audience members to ask Ms Hanson loaded questions in an attempt to catch her out.

The ACMA has previously noted that on contentious matters of political debate, viewers expect presenters to be questioning and at times sceptical in their engagement with guests. Further, it is possible, indeed useful, for an interviewer or presenter to adopt a strong contrarian stance without this necessarily amounting to a lack of impartiality – particularly if the contrarian stance encourages the interviewee to explain or defend a position or claim. Such an approach is particularly well understood in interviews of seasoned political figures.4

The Code notes that from time to time, the ABC publishes Guidance Notes which may be relevant in interpreting and applying the Code. The Guidance Note concerning impartiality states:

Provide sufficient opportunity for interviewees to answer questions or state their views, notwithstanding there will be situations where interruptions will be appropriate - for example, to elicit or clarify a response to a question which the interviewee is not answering, or not answering clearly, relevantly and within a reasonable time.5

In this case, it was clear that the matters discussed were newsworthy and highly contentious and that there were a range of perspectives from the audience and panellists about home-grown radicalisation and terrorism. Mr Jones took questions from the studio audience and sought responses from all members of the panel. In that regard, the issues explored in the panel discussion demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence.

In light of the context described above, viewers would have expected contentious matters relating to home-grown radicalisation and Islam to be vigorously explored and discussed robustly.

The questions posed by the studio audience were driven by the high level of public interest concerning terrorism and were largely directed to Ms Hanson on the basis of her strong views on Islam. Ms Hanson was given the opportunity to convey her views on key matters of contention. It is noted that the ABC’s statistics indicate that Ms Hanson’s contribution amounted to 36% of discussion time.6 When she was interrupted by the audience and other panel members, Mr Jones motioned with his hand and body language to give her an opportunity to articulate her views and complete her response.

While there were occasions where Mr Jones interrupted, probed and sought further clarification from Ms Hanson, his tone was neutral throughout the program and he was consistent with his treatment and probing questions across all members of the panel. For example, when Ms Hanson made the statement that ‘Islam does not believe in democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of the press’, Mr Jones proceeded to ask probing questions to clarify her statement on Islam and democracy:

3 http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/islam, accessed 26 September 2016. 4 See ACMA Investigation Report 3158 – ABC News Breakfast – Interview with the Hon. Greg Hunt, MP by Ms

Virginia Trioli. 5 ABC Editorial Policies: Guidance Note: Impartiality 2013 (revised in 2014). 6 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4485524.htm, accessed 26 September 2016.


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4485524.htm

http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/islam

TONY JONES: Pauline, can I just interrupt you? I mean, can you make such a blanket statement "Islam doesn't believe in democracy" when north of Australia is the biggest democracy in our region and it's Islamic?

PAULINE HANSON: No, look, I don't – I don’t believe that. I don't believe that because you've got a lot of countries around the world, they have a political ideology that want to control the people. Now, I want to see a separation of the two.

TONY JONES: You don't think that's true...

PAULINE HANSON: This is what I’m saying.

TONY JONES: You don’t think that’s true of Indonesia though, do you?

PAULINE HANSON: I think they control the people and their beliefs […]

Similarly, Mr Jones interrupted, challenged and probed other members of the panel. For example:

TONY JONES: Sam – Sam, can I just interrupt you?

SAM DASTYARI: I just don’t think you can...

TONY JONES: But right now you're doing more talking than dancing, so can you just get to the point of which measures you will actually pass?

Mr Jones also demonstrated fair treatment by seeking comments from all five members of the panel, particularly at times when the majority of the questions were directed to Ms Hanson. For example:

TONY JONES: Okay, we’re just going to let Pauline Hanson just quickly answer that and I’d like to hear from the other panellists as well. So, Pauline, a brief answer if you wouldn’t mind?

TONY JONES: Pauline, there’s a lot of questions so I’m going to go around the panel […]

While a large proportion of the questions were aimed at Ms Hanson, Mr Jones also facilitated an open minded discussion and a diversity of perspectives by asking other panel members for their views and responses to Ms Hanson’s comments. This included Ms Hanson’s call for a Royal Commission into Islam, which was acknowledged and put forward to Mr Birmingham for comment.

On the whole, viewers would have understood that there were strong opposing views about Islam and how the issue of radicalisation should be handled by Government policies and programs and that some responses from members of the panel warranted challenge and/or further clarification.

In light of the above, the ACMA is satisfied that the program demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence, fair treatment, open mindedness and an opportunity for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript of Q&A, broadcast on the ABC on 18 July 2016 as provided by the ABC’s website7

TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: Labor Senator Sam Dastyari; Senator-elect, Pauline Hanson, whose One Nation party will win at least three Senate spots and she believes could win seven; Greens deputy leader Senator Larissa Waters; Minister for Education and Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham; and Nick Xenophon who'll now lead a team of three Senators. Please welcome our panel.

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: Well, as usual, you can watch Q&A live across Australia on ABC TV, News 24 and listen on NewsRadio and we're streaming Q&A live on Facebook, where you can watch, you can make a comment or you can ask a question. Let’s go to our first question in the audience from Praba Sekhar.

NICE ATTACK - HOME GROWN TERROR

PRABA SEKHAR: From the recent attacks we have seen in France yet again, it is evident that there is a rise in home-grown terrorism, where boys and girls are being radicalised from a young age, with consequences that we've seen here in Australia with the death of Curtis Cheng in Parramatta. My question to the panel tonight is do you put forward any strategies for early intervention to curb these individuals from going down that path and committing these abhorrent acts of terror?

TONY JONES: Larissa Waters, we’ll start with you?

LARISSA WATERS: Thanks, Tony. Look, that's a really pertinent and fantastically phrased question, Praba. We absolutely need to intervene so that young people or any people aren't radicalised and I believe that we can do that. We've had some wonderful social cohesion programs previously in this nation, some of which were sadly defunded when the Abbott Government first came to power but I believe it's not too late. I think we have a fantastic and strong multicultural community in Australia that we can build on and further strengthen. What I'm concerned about is the fanning of the flames of fear and divisiveness. I think that will not make us safer. In fact, it will make us less safe. We need to make sure that everyone feels included and welcomed and a part of our community. That's how we keep safe and strong and if we demonise people, isolate them, call them names, fear-monger, then we simply push young people towards radicalisation. Now, that's a task for all of us to not participate in that sort of divisive, inflammatory and totally incorrect language and conduct and it's going to be a very interesting parliament in that regard.

TONY JONES: Pauline Hanson?

PAULINE HANSON: Quite interesting what you were saying, Larissa, and I'm sure that was, you know, pointed at me about demonising. It is a huge issue in

7 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4485524.htm, accessed 26 September 2016.


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4485524.htm

Australia and we haven't had terrorism on our streets before. You know, it's just in these last decade that we have experienced it and we are experiencing it around the world. You’ve got to ask yourself, then, what's behind it and why is it happening? I haven't got all the answers but the thing is that you've got to deal with why the radicalisation is happening, why people want to go out and create terror to destroy lives, create murder and fear on our streets. I haven't started this. This has been happening for many years now and we have terrorist attacks that’s happening around the world. To bury your head in the sand is not the answer to it. Radicalisation is not just happening by fear-mongering, you know, by words, because I'm asking for a debate and find the right answers. This is happening on the Internet, it's happening around the world because people, for whatever reason, are drawn to a religion or an ideology that is not compatible with the Western way of life and is having an impact on our culture and our way of life. I'm concerned for every one of you here in this audience tonight and everyone at home, because I want safety on our streets, I want to find the right answers and it's important for each and every one of us and for the future generations. To ignore it is not the answer to it. To think that we can find the easy answers, it's not, but pulling together as a community and as a nation to debate the issue, then we can find the right answers.

TONY JONES: Pauline, we'll come back to what you believe some of those answers are in a minute. Sam Dastyari.

SAM DASTYARI: Look, there's so much there to unpack that we'll have plenty of time to do I hope tonight. This issue of radicalisation is a real problem and it's a real concern and you have to ask yourself why would there be young Australians that have grown up here and been part of our society that feel so alienated, so disincluded from our society that they take these kinds of extreme steps? Now, we have a responsibility to make sure the right Muslim voices are being promoted. We have a responsibility to acknowledge that there is a problem but we also have a responsibility to make sure that we're not fanning the flames of extremists who want nothing more - nothing more - than for Muslims in Western nations to feel uncomfortable about being there. That is the path to division. That is the path we cannot go down.

TONY JONES: Simon Birmingham?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, thanks, Praba, for the question and, look, really the first point is prevention, prevention for new migrants comes from having successful resettlement services supporting those migrants in terms of learning English if that's necessary, supporting them in terms of accessing training to help them get in to the employment market. For home-grown radicals that, of course, really involves making sure that through our schooling programs and education system there is strong sense of inclusion, again, strong pathways and hope that people will be able to succeed and fulfil their aspirations of work and opportunity. But, of course, where those things don’t work, where prevention doesn't work, then the battle becomes one of identification and intervention and we have been taking steps to make sure that, in our schools, there's greater support for teachers and the school community to identify risks and threats, that there's that understanding in communities, particularly Islamic communities,


where we all acknowledge there is a particular potential problem for those communities to feel comfortable, family members, leader in communities, to refer young people who they think may be at risk of radicalisation to authorities because we want to make sure that we get those early interventions in place and the types of changes we've made to laws in recent years have allowed more of those types of early interventions to occur to prevent the types of atrocities that we've seen overseas largely from occurring in Australia, not completely sadly, but we have had success through the types of strategies that we’ve been deploying today.

TONY JONES: Okay. Nick Xenophon? And we’ll hear every just briefly and then we’ll get into what will be a debate, I guess.

NICK XENOPHON: In direct answer to the question, of course we need to do more in terms of counter-radicalisation programs. I think Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells – I think both sides of politics - all sides of politics have said she's done terrific work in the past in terms of deradicalisation programs and engaging with all communities but I think it is a two pronged approach, more on de-radicalisation, also to look very closely at why some events have occurred, and I think there has been a failure in terms of policing or intelligence. It’s still beyond me why Man Haron Monis was on the streets when he was and did what he did and I think that points to some systemic failures, which the Coroner – New South Wales Coroner is going through. But in answer to your question, I think the key to this is that you marginalise the extremists and the preachers of hate, not an entire community. And in terms of the broader issue about Islam, the world's biggest Islamic nation happens to be Indonesia, our neighbour to the north, where they have had a stunning success in becoming a democratic country in the region, and I think we should all be very proud of that and it’s an example of a nation, predominantly Muslim, where they've done tremendous things in terms of being strong a democracy with a strong free press.

TONY JONES: Okay, let’s go straight to our next question. It’s from Cindy Rahal. Go ahead.

ISLAM ROYAL COMMISSION

CINDY RAHAL: Hi. My question is for Pauline. Now, you've called for a Royal Commission into Islam to determine whether Islam is a political ideology or a religion. Can you please explain what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a political ideology and why Judaism, Christianity fall under the banner of a religion even though Islam, Judaism and Christianity all stem from the Abrahamic faith?

PAULINE HANSON: Islam does not separate itself from political ideology and, whereas the Christianity, under the Westminster system, we are - separate the rule of law from the – from the State. So they are separate. Islam doesn't and a lot of the countries that are ruled under Islam is their ideology - the political ideology. Now, I understand Islam does not believe in democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of the press. You have Hizb ut-Tahrir that preaches the fact that they will want total control of the people and that’s...


TONY JONES: Pauline, can I just interrupt you? I mean, can you make such a blanket statement "Islam doesn't believe in democracy" when north of Australia is the biggest democracy in our region and it's Islamic?

PAULINE HANSON: No, look, I don't – I don’t believe that. I don't believe that because you've got a lot of countries around the world, they have a political ideology, that want to control the people. Now, I want to see a separation of the two.

TONY JONES: You don't think that's true ...

PAULINE HANSON: This is what I’m saying.

TONY JONES: You don’t think that’s true of Indonesia though, do you?

PAULINE HANSON: I think they control the people and their beliefs, I really do, and the people controlled by it. You know we are a Christian country and I don't believe that Islam is compatible with our culture and our way of life and that's why we have problems in Australia on the streets and a lot of people are opposing the mosques that are built here and it’s happened throughout the world and terrorism that’s happening.

TONY JONES: Can I just let Cindy – Cindy Rahal, I think, probably wants to get back in to answer. You've been listening to this, what do you think?

CINDY RAHAL: Yeah, I just – I think that Muslims in Australia have constantly been telling people like you and who support you that that is not what Islam is about and it's falling on deaf ears and I think you have very selective hearing and what you're creating is not one nation, you are creating a divided nation. If you want to have a look at creating one nation, you need to look at ways we can include everybody - all the Muslims and any other religion as well. You have a very one-track mind and unfortunately it is very dangerous.

PAULINE HANSON: We have terrorism...

(APPLAUSE)

PAULINE HANSON: We have terrorism on our streets.

TONY JONES: Okay, thank you.

PAULINE HANSON: We have terrorism on the streets that we've never had before. We've had murders committed under the name of Islam, as we have the Lindt cafe, Curtis Cheng and the two police officers in Melbourne, right? So this has happened. You have radicalisation...

TONY JONES: Can I just – I’m sure that – Pauline, I'm sure the fact checkers will be onto this but when you say we've never had terrorism in this country before, that's simply not the case.

PAULINE HANSON: Not to...

TONY JONES: In the 1970s there were multiple bombings by Croatian Catholic extremists. This has happen in Australia before. It’s not the first time. We should at least get that straight.


PAULINE HANSON: All right. I accept that.

CINDY RAHAL: Sorry, I’d just like to say that you're in a position now where you can make a change. I think you should use that position positively, instead of driving this fear amongst the community. Why don't you look at domestic violence? Why don't you look at education? Why don’t you look at health? You're in a position that many Australian women would envy – that envy you and would like to be in that same position.

PAULINE HANSON: Because – because I want Australians...

CINDY RAHAL: Why are you – why are you pushing this agenda and pushing fear into our community and making people like myself and my friend here worried to come into the studio because of protesters outside?

(APPLAUSE)

PAULINE HANSON: The protest has got nothing to do with me. The protestors were there against me.

CINDY RAHAL: They support you. They support you, Pauline. They support you.

TONY JONES: Okay, Cindy.

PAULINE HANSON: No, that...

TONY JONES: Okay, we’re just going to let Pauline Hanson just quickly answer that and I'd like to hear from the other panellists as well. So, Pauline, a brief answer if you wouldn’t mind?

PAULINE HANSON: With what question? About the protesters outside? The protesters were against me because I choose to speak up against this matter, so I have protesters which are trying to shut down freedom of speech. You know, I want answers to the questions. People in Australia are in fear because they can't walk in the streets. Their fear of terrorism, which is happening around the world. Why? Because of Islam. Because you have the radicalisation. We just all spoke about radicalisation is actually happening in Australia. Who is it under and what religion - so-called religion?

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: So we actually have to find the right answers to this so we can all live in peace and harmony.

TONY JONES: Pauline, there's a lot of questions so I'm going to go around the panel and get their response to that. I’ll start with Sam Dastyari.

SAM DASTYARI: I’m just - sorry, I'm just a little bit flabbergasted here. The politics of fear, hate and division is not the politics that we should be espousing as a nation and, look, you know, Ms Hanson here is not an amateur. She's not inexperienced. Ms Hanson, you've been in politics now for 20 years and you know exactly what you're doing and the language you use and the power of your language. You know, 20 years ago it started off with blaming Indigenous Australians. Then it became about we're being swamped by Asians. Now it's about blaming the Muslim and the Muslim community. It is the politics of picking one


section of our community against another section of our community, about simplifying complex problems and placing the blame on one group at one point in time. It is the politics of fear and division and, Ms Hanson, you're incredibly good at it.

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: So, one minute you can say we had a radicalisation (indistinct) problems in our country, yet then you put it back on me that I'm creating fear. So you're saying terrorism and the fear on the streets, so people don't feel safe in this country or what's happen in Nice, or what’s happened in Paris, or what’s happened in Germany and the other countries around the world or America? So that’s not actually happening?

SAM DASTYARI: Ms Hanson, I'm saying you play the politics of fear and hate, because it serves your political interests.

PAULINE HANSON: Because...

SAM DASTYARI: And you have been doing it for the past 20 years and you're very good at it.

TONY JONES: Can I just leave you two there for a minute and I want to hear from the other side of the panel and we’ll hear from Simon Birmingham first. The Royal Commission that was suggested in the question, I presume the Government will rule that out?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Indeed, Tony. Now, Cindy, was it? Cindy, I understand your concerns. Your concerns, as a Muslim woman living in Australia, that you are worried, as I know many others are, about your place in Australia and the type of country we are in welcoming you. We also have to acknowledge there are around 500,000 Australians who voted for Pauline's party. They have worries and many who didn't have worries about terrorism, about threats that exist. Our responsibility, I think, is of course how we reconcile that to make sure that you continue to feel that this is a country that you are free to practise your faith in, respected while practising that faith but that others, equally, feel safe and comfortable that the Government is not only doing everything possible to protect them but is being successful in doing so and that we actually do create the type of environment where it doesn't matter what your religion is, what your background is, you actually are living as an Australian in Australia, in a country that celebrates and recognises - as we have done for a long period of time as the world's most successful multicultural nation - celebrates and recognises those backgrounds but we can't be blind to the fears that are there either and to the fact that terrorism, Islamic terrorism, has become an increasing problem in pockets of the world, has threatened us in certain ways and therefore we have to be ever vigilant in that and ever vigilant in explaining calmly and rationally to Australians as to the types of steps we take to protect them so that we make sure we give that comfort to all Australians.

TONY JONES: Okay. But just a quick follow-up there. I mean, you talk about calm and rational conversation that needs to be had over this. Do you believe that a call for a Royal Commission, that a call for banning all


Muslims from coming to Australia as immigrants, do you believe that falls into that category because that's part of the One Nation platform?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No, I don't think a Royal Commission would be at all helpful and I don't think that bans on certain categories of people are ever helpful, Tony. So, you know, the Government's approach will absolutely be one to ensure everything we do in our powers to deliver safety and security for Australians. But that safety and security includes being a harmonious, welcoming country, where all Australians feel free to live, worship as long as they are living according to the laws of this land.

TONY JONES: Larissa Waters, you can come in on this question.

LARISSA WATERS: Look, Cindy, can I thank you for your articulation and can I apologise to you. I think what we've seen tonight is that many Australians don't share the views of some folk on this panel and I do want to deeply apologise that you feel in any way discomforted or unwelcome in your own country. I think that is grossly unfair and utterly uncalled for. I think it’s wonderful...

PAULINE HANSON: Are you apologising for the rest of the Australians who actually feel that they – how they’re living in fear as well?

LARISSA WATERS: Well, I do want to come to why I think people have voted for your party, Pauline, because I actually probably have a different perspective on that one. But just staying with Cindy, thank you. I have a bone to pick with Pauline in regards to your statement that we're a Christian nation. Actually I think we're a multi-faith nation. Indeed, we’re a nation of people who sometimes don't have a religion. I think we are broad spectrum, we are diverse, that is our strength. That has been our strength ever since our formation. Clearly we have some serious reconciliation and reparation to do with the First Australians but we are strong in our diversity.

(APPLAUSE)

LARISSA WATERS: Thank you. I also want to add that I think it's somewhat ironic that Ms Hanson is objecting that her freedom of speech is somehow being restricted because there's people protesting out the front of tonight's show when, in fact, she's seeking to silence your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion, which I object to.

TONY JONES: And, Nick Xenophon, a brief answer because we've got quite a few questions to get through.

NICK XENOPHON: Well, the brief answer is this: you cannot simply – you cannot use the actions of a few to ascribe them to many - to many hundreds of thousands of Australian whose are here in this country because they want a good life, a peaceful life. They want their kids to have a good education. They want the opportunity that this great country has brought and I'm very proud of the fact that my parents came from war-torn Europe over 60 years ago for a good life and – and I think that's what 99.999% of those that come to this country actually want.


TONY JONES: Okay, Pauline Hanson referred to the scepticism among some Australians about Islam. Our next questioner, I think it's fair to say, shares that. Carolyn Freckleton.

ISLAM RISING?

CAROLYN FRECKLETON: Good evening, panel, and thank you for the debate. It has been very interesting so far. With the proposed increases in Muslim refugees and probably the fairly rapid growth in the population of that Muslim group, a lot of Australians are concerned that many Muslims are not willing to fully integrate into our community. So my question - main question is: do you think politicians are being extremely arrogant or extremely naive in thinking they can change 1400 years of indoctrination, when integration has been largely a failure or resulted in only a barely-tolerated co- existence wherever Muslim populations exist in Western countries? And, secondly, a minor question but is a dinner for leaders of the Islamic community held by Prime Minister Turnbull recently, evidence of the growing political power of that group?

TONY JONES: Okay, Simon Birmingham, the dinner, first of all, and we'll keep our answers brief, if we can.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, the dinner first of all was, Carolyn, a multi-faith dinner. Yes, it obviously did mark Iftar, I think, from memory, and – but it was attended by leaders of many different faiths and, of course, it was a reflection of the reality that if we are firstly to successfully ensure that all Australians live harmoniously alongside one another, we need to promote that type of respect across faiths. Secondly, a reflection of the reality that if our security and intelligence services, who are tasked with our protection in terms of identifying problems are to succeed in their job, then they need - which means Government needs - the cooperation of community leaders to make sure that those isolated instances are identified as quickly as possible.

TONY JONES: Sam Dastyari, I'll bring you in. The questioner asked whether politicians are being naive or extremely arrogant in relation to Islam?

SAM DASTYARI: I think we're being neither. Look, I mean, it’s - I look at this and I can't not but look at this from my kind of personal story. I was born in a small town in northern Iran. When someone like Sonia Kruger goes on this morning and talks about banning Muslims from coming to the country or it's black and white in Pauline Hanson's policy document, what they're effectively saying is people like my parents shouldn't have been allowed to come to this country because of where they were born and it's hurtful and it's painful and I look at just what my parents - and not just them but so many other Muslim-Australians, so many other migrants, so many other - the hundreds of thousands of migrant stories and when I look at - Ms Hanson, when I look at your policy document that turns around and says that we should be banning Muslims from coming to this country, I have to ask does that mean that a five-year-old Sam Dastyari should never have been able to set foot in Australia because somewhere in Tehran there's a document that sits that says beside my name the word "Muslim" because of where I was born?

PAULINE HANSON: Are you a Muslim?


(LAUGHTER)

PAULINE HANSON: Really? (Indistinct).

SAM DASTYARI: Yeah, and I have never hidden away. No, no, no.

PAULINE HANSON: So were you sworn in under the Quran?

SAM DASTYARI: I was born in an Islamic nation and by being born...

PAULINE HANSON: So you're a Muslim.

SAM DASTYARI: ...in an Islamic nation, I was born - and under Iranian law, under Islamic law, under places like Iran and my parents fled to be able to come to this country

PAULINE HANSON: And are you a practising Muslim? This is quite interesting. Are you a practising Muslim?

SAM DASTYARI: No, no, no.

NICK XENOPHON: So what?

SAM DASTYARI: Ms Hanson, I think you're trying to make a joke of what is a serious...

PAULINE HANSON: No, I'm surprised. I didn’t know that about you.

SAM DASTYARI: I think you’re making a joke.

LARISSA WATERS: Because he doesn't have three heads?

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

SAM DASTYARI: So, what, because I don’t have three heads? Ms Hanson, when you have a policy document that says in black and white, "We should be banning Muslims from coming to this country," I can't help but interpret what that means...

PAULINE HANSON: I think we need a moratorium. Well, I think we need a moratorium.

SAM DASTYARI: ...for people like my family and the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come from the Middle East and around the world. Yes, it’s very personal.

PAULINE HANSON: And I – you know, you mentioned Sonia Kruger. I'm saying, “Go, Sonia”, because I think it's great that someone actually is standing up because she's expressed her feeling about it. She referred to Japan that, you know, for a population of 127 million people, who actually have 100,000, they don't have terrorism on their streets. You've got Brussels now, the biggest Muslim, you know, State there with 300,000 in there. You've got 10% in France. You have the problems on the streets of France because of Islam.

NICK XENOPHON: So you wouldn't have let a five – you wouldn’t have let five-year-old Sam Dastyari into the country?

PAULINE HANSON: Oh, (indistinct).


NICK XENOPHON: No, no. Well...

PAULINE HANSON: I’m (indistinct).

SAM DASTYARI: No, no, seriously would you have allowed five-year-old Sam Dastyari into this country? He came to this country on the 16th of January, 1988, two weeks before – two weeks before the Bicentenary celebrations and my family has done nothing but contribute to this country since they've been here, and, yes, they came from a Muslim country.

PAULINE HANSON: Thank you, Sam, I'm so happy that you've come to Australia. That’s – that’s...

TONY JONES: So, but Pauline Hanson, could you...

PAULINE HANSON: No, but...

TONY JONES: But could you just answer the very basic question that he threw up there?

PAULINE HANSON: All right. All right. The basic question is what...

TONY JONES: Would you – would you be happy to see him blocked from - someone in his position now, who's been persecuted in another country that happens to be...

PAULINE HANSON: Well, you ask the families...

TONY JONES: …that happens – hang on, I’ll just finish. That happens to be a Muslim, would you be happy to see that five-year-old blocked from coming here?

PAULINE HANSON: Muslims have been a part of Australia for a long, long time, many, many years, and you go back to the gold rush days and they were in here in Australia but it is only in the last, what, 10, 20 years that we have seen a rise of terrorism on the streets. You've got to ask yourself the question why. Why is happening?

LARISSA WATERS: Because we invaded their countries, Pauline.

PAULINE HANSON: It is not about invading their countries, Larissa. That’s rubbish.

LARISSA WATERS: Because we went to war with their nations and killed their people.

PAULINE HANSON: So that’s a reason why they should...

SAM DASTYARI: So, Ms Hanson, a five-year-old Sam Dastyari can't come to this country now but I could have come 28 years ago?

PAULINE HANSON: Sam, we have problems now. To take it back there, that's absolutely ridiculous, what you're talking about. All right? We’re talking about...

SAM DASTYARI: That is exactly what we're talking about.

PAULINE HANSON: It is not. We’re talking about...

SAM DASTYARI: It’s black and white in your policy document.


PAULINE HANSON: It’s got – no, Sam, you're talk about something that ridiculous back when - how long ago? How old are you?

SAM DASTYARI: I came to this country 28 years ago.

PAULINE HANSON: That’s 28 years ago. We're talking about now what is happening now and the day - today in the world with the terrorist attacks and fear on our streets and how that far...

SAM DASTYARI: So today I couldn't come to this country but 28 years ago I could.

TONY JONES: All right. Sorry, I'm going to put you both on hold because we’ve actually got – I’m going to come to our next question, which is from Khaled Elomar, because that will also feed into this discussion. Everyone can get involved in that. Khaled Elomar, go ahead.

ISLAMOPHOBIA & MY SON

KHALED ELOMAR: Senator Hanson, my 11-year-old son, who is watching this program right now, recently asked me, "What is Islamophobia?" Rather than explaining it to him with my own words, he and I sat down side by side and watched a few of your past and recent videos. Then I asked him, "What do you think Islamophobia is?" His response was, "Someone that hates us." I said, "Islamophobia is one or a combination of three things: Hate, fear or ignorance." I promised him that I will ask you this question, so he can hear the answer from yourself. So with all due respect, Ms Hanson, what is the basis of your Islamophobic feelings: hate, fear or ignorance?

(APPLAUSE)

PAULINE HANSON: None of the above of what you've just said, alright? What I'm concerned about - and your son may be watching but also other children may be watching this as well, who want to live in peace and harmony in this country without fear. It's about us getting on together as a nation and working together with that fear amongst us. Why have we got so much fear on our streets? Why did the Lindt cafe happen? Why did Curtis Cheng – why is he murdered? Why is other things happening? Why are there terrorist attack around the world? You know, we need to find the answers to this and why the radicalisation, why have we just recently had another three men wanting to leave this country or five it was, to actually go and fight for ISIL?

TONY JONES: Yeah, as I say, please go ahead.

KHALED ELOMAR: Why? Simply because people like yourself, who have extremely dangerous and disturbing rhetoric, it's a fuel to hatred, bigotry and ignorance. You should listen to what you say.

PAULINE HANSON: No, I can say...

KHALED ELOMAR: Because your policies are simply a contradiction to your own One Nation party. You're not creating a One Nation party.

PAULINE HANSON: So it’s all right for your...


KHALED ELOMAR: You are creating a dysfunctional country by isolating a religion, 20 years ago isolating a race and you keep on going down this track, I will fear for my wife's life. I will fear for my kid's life.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Who is an Australian-born.

KHALED ELOMAR: I work in Cronulla. I have worked there for eight years. I absolutely love the place. Only recently, after your rhetoric has came on board the media, almost every day I get called a Muslim pig because of you.

PAULINE HANSON: No.

KHALED ELOMAR: And I really do thank you for that because it just shows how much of a better person I am that I can choose to ignore these guys.

(APPLAUSE)

KHALED ELOMAR: And remain the person that I am.

TONY JONES: So, Pauline, can I just put this question to you? I mean, you know that Mr Elomar's son is actually sitting watching this. He just told you that. Can you offer him any hope that you regard him as an equal Australian along with all other citizens?

PAULINE HANSON: There are a lot of Muslims and there are actually Muslims of my party, who have joined my party, who want a peaceful life in Australia. They don't want the terrorism. Isn't it funny that your Grand Mufti won't even come out and condemn the terrorist attacks that’s happened overseas or imams or people that say they have no intention of assimilating into our society or when you have problems in communities because people are living in fear. Why do you reverse it on me and say you're blaming me for the problems in Australia when we have seen what is happening?

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: But Pauline – Pauline, can I just - can I put this to you: is it possibly because you've asked that no more mosques be built in this country, that you’ve asked that no more Muslims be allowed to enter this country?

PAULINE HANSON: Wasn’t it the truth that...

TONY JONES: Do you think – no, so but can I just put that question to you again about that young boy, who is sitting watching this now?

PAULINE HANSON: About how he feels, but like I said – like I said to you there’s a lot...

TONY JONES: Can you offer him – can you offer him any hope that you regard him as an equal citizen?

PAULINE HANSON: He is an equal citizen, as long as he wants to give his loyalty to this country and is not torn by an ideology that has hatred towards the West or infidels.

TONY JONES: Okay.


PAULINE HANSON: You know, you have problems that are happening around the world. Radicalisation is about hate for the infidels. You know, this hatred wasn't created by me. It is under the belief of the Islam. Look at - read the Quran and what the Quran preaches in it. It's hatred. Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali (indistinct) and she’s travelling the world and she’s saying she was a Muslim. She said "Be, you know, aware of what this is all about." If you want to sit here and you...

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: ...and just, you know, as - I'll go back to the same thing.

SAM DASTYARI: It is just the politics of hate, Pauline. It is the politics of hate.

PAULINE HANSON: It is not the politics of hate, Sam, because...

SAM DASTYARI: It’s the politics of division. It’s the politics of disunity and you have played it for 20 years.

PAULINE HANSON: It has got nothing to do with that. Sam...

SAM DASTYARI: It was Indigenous Australians, then it was Asians and now it's Muslims.

PAULINE HANSON: We all do it for – because you’ve got the votes because it's actually growing in numbers. Muslims in this country that you are pandering...

SAM DASTYARI: It was Indigenous, then it was Asians, now it's Muslims.

PAULINE HANSON: You are pandering to it to get the votes.

TONY JONES: Okay, I’m going to – sorry, I'm going to pause this side of the panel again to hear from this side and I’ll start with Nick Xenophon.

NICK XENOPHON: Well, I just - what's there to say? I mean, I think that...

TONY JONES: Well, you're going to be living in the Senate.

NICK XENOPHON: Yeah. Yeah.

TONY JONES: With a large number of One Nation and you're a bloc of votes, so you're going to have to work out how to live together in the Senate.

NICK XENOPHON: Where there is common ground, if it's issues about Australian jobs, Australian-made, signing up to create agreements which clearly aren't in our national interest, I will work with my colleagues.

TONY JONES: Okay. What about the issues we're talking about? Does it concern you that the Senate may become a forum for this debate pushed by One Nation and others?

NICK XENOPHON: The Senate is a forum for matters that Senators want to raise and if Senators - and Ms Hanson is entitled to raise those issues. She's been duly elected. You need to respect that. It doesn't mean we can't have vehement disagreements about it but respectful disagreements and my view is that a message of unity, a message of – of people working together is one that will always triumph over one of division.


TONY JONES: Simon Birmingham, the call for reform of Islam, which is coming not only from Pauline Hanson but as she mentioned from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others, does that resonate with you?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Tony, I think reform of Islam depends, as always in these conversations, what do you mean when you say that? You know, what are people talking about and, indeed, what necessarily is the Islam perhaps that they are talking about in those conversations. Because you can talk about reform of the Catholic Church if you want and you know the hierarchy you're pointing to. You could talk about perhaps reform of Islam in Australia and you might be able to point to some leaders of the Islamic faith in Australia but when you talk about it in a global context, I’m not sure that it makes a lot of sense to put it that way. I do want to say something, though, to Khaled and that is the people who taunt you and abuse you deserve our condemnation. They deserve the condemnation of each and every one of us sitting on this panel.

(APPLAUSE)

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Just, of course – just, of course, as I would expect each and every one of us to condemn those who inspire acts of terrorism or hatred in any other direction. You know, it is the hatred that we should be condemning and stamping out whomever it is directed at, whomever it is coming from. We want to make sure that that is what we are tackling and, by creating more hatred, is only of course going to worsen the problem in years to come.

TONY JONES: We've got another question on this subject. I'll quickly come to Mohammed Attai.

PAULINE – COME TO DINNER

MOHAMMED ATTAI: My name is Mohammed, apparently I look like the Australian Idol Guy Sebastian.

LARISSA WATERS: He does a bit.

(LAUGHTER)

MOHAMMED ATTAI: I love my religion Islam and have been to more mosques than I have the supermarket. Perhaps the greatest influence for me and my family members to becoming hard-working and focussing on education and hoping to be good citizens of this country was the emphasis placed on it by my religion, Islam. I have three siblings who are lawyers and that made me go mad. I became a psychologist. I believe the best way to increase understanding and mutual respect is through interaction. Senator Hanson, I understand you declined Sam Dastyari's offer for a Halal snack pack.

SAM DASTYARI: She's reconsidering.

PAULINE HANSON: No, I'm not.

(LAUGHTER)

MOHAMMED ATTAI: With respect to that, would you be willing to take my offer to inviting you for lunch or dinner - which ever suits you best - with me and my


Muslim family and, in respect to you and your beliefs, while we have something Halal I'll ensure what you have is something that’s not Halal, a haram snack pack. Would you kindly accept my invitation?

(APPLAUSE)

PAULINE HANSON: That's a kind invitation. Thank you very much. I'm quite happy to spend time with many Australians and...

MOHAMMED ATTAI: With my one?

PAULINE HANSON: With your haram? What's a haram snack pack?

TONY JONES: No, he said with his...

MOHAMMED ATTAI: Anything over a meat and a lunch, a dinner. Just so we can increase our understanding and my offer extends to all people who might be – who might dislike Islam and all Muslims.

TONY JONES: Now, Pauline, would...

PAULINE HANSON: Let me – no, hold on a minute.

TONY JONES: Would this...

PAULINE HANSON: No, no.

TONY JONES: Okay, sure. Go ahead.

PAULINE HANSON: Made a comment that I dislike Islam and all Muslims. That is not the case whatsoever.

MOHAMMED ATTAI: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: And as I said I have Muslims...

TONY JONES: I don't think he said that actually. I don't think he said that.

PAULINE HANSON: What did you say? Okay, let's clarify it.

MOHAMMED ATTAI: No, I said my offer extends to anyone who also might dislike Islam and all Muslims in a pursuit to create further understanding, so over any meal, whether it's Halal or haram.

PAULINE HANSON: We can talk. You can get in touch with my office, see what happens.

MOHAMMED ATTAI: Sure.

PAULINE HANSON: Yeah. (Indistinct)

LARISSA WATERS: (Indistinct) answer for you.

TONY JONES: So it’s a nice sort of piece of reconciliation in what has been quite a tough argument but I’m just – so, seriously, would you be prepared to sit down with Muslims and particularly with his family, since he's offered, and try and understand things from their perspective.


PAULINE HANSON: I – look, I know there are people in this country who are Muslims, of the Muslim faith, that they want a peaceful life and they want to live without fear and, yes, I think that's wonderful. We are a multiracial nation but the bottom line is that we must be Australian under the one culture, way of life and our laws and I...

NICK XENOPHON: Tony, I think the important question is: what's on the menu?

(LAUGHTER)

PAULINE HANSON: Yeah.

TONY JONES: Well, I think he mentioned haram meats for the non-believer.

PAULINE HANSON: Well, as long as it’s not Halal.

SAM DASTYARI: Tony, I think what Nick is trying to say, that Nick and I will come round to your place because I'll never say no to a snack pack.

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: Okay, I tell you what. I’m going to - I think that's a surprisingly optimistic note on which to leave that quite tense discussion. Remember, if you hear any doubtful claims send a tweet using the hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, keep an eye on our Twitter account for the verdicts. The next question comes from Peter Hoban.

POLITICS: MINOR PARTY POWER

PETER HOBAN: Thank you, Tony, and panel. I feel my question now is rather insignificant compared to the topics we’ve been talking about but here it goes anyway. To the independent Senators, do you realise the opportunity that you have been given to actually make decisions not shackled by vested interest party backers? The Australian people have made a deliberate and accurate decision to virtually neuter the Liberal and Labor discourse of petty party politics. We're jack of it. If either party thinks they have a mandate, they're dreaming. The nation has been crying out for real but equitable change. Can you provide a workable alternative? How will you negotiate in good faith?

TONY JONES: I’ll start with Nick Xenophon

NICK XENOPHON: It is an incredible opportunity, an awesome opportunity to do the right thing and for me it's not about left or right, it is about right or wrong. Where do you do things from the political centre and I think there has been a vacuum in the political centre in this country. It's a great opportunity, with my colleagues, with Stirling Griff, Skye Kakoschke-Moore. We will be pushing an agenda that I think is mainstream for reform of predatory gambling. Most Australians want to see reform. The major parties don’t want to touch it. For Australian-made and Australian jobs, we are facing a crisis of manufacturing in this country and we need to see a turbo charging of manufacturing through some sensible and measured Government intervention. And when it comes to Government accountability, why is it that in this country if you're a whistle-blower, instead of getting a medal, you go to jail? And we need to see changes to that which will change the culture of government. So I’m looking forward to the opportunity and working with my colleagues, all of them, to bring about some reforms.


TONY JONES: So, Nick Xenophon, I’m going to bring you in because you heard the passion expressed in that of someone who wants to see something outside the major parties, wants to see change and the big question is will you use your voting power to push through those kinds of reforms you just mentioned? Will you refuse to vote for various things that the Government wants unless you get your way? That's the simple question.

NICK XENOPHON: Yeah, sure. It’s a simple question but, sadly, it doesn't lend itself to a simple answer.

TONY JONES: Perhaps it should.

NICK XENOPHON: Well, it should but it doesn’t. I mean, in my first speech in the Senate eight years ago, I said the trouble with horse trading is that sometimes you end up with a donkey or, worse still, you make an ass of yourself. I think the key issue here is that you use every opportunity to try and bring about reform. Sometimes it's incremental. You bring about change. You bring about reform. You insist on an amendment, which will actually advance those causes but sometimes you need to win both sides of politics to say that it’s not in the national interest to sign up to a free trade agreement which will kill jobs or to abandon manufacturing, which will destroy many tens of thousands of jobs in this country.

TONY JONES: Okay, so I'm going to hear from the Senators representing two new voting blocs in the Senate. Pauline Hanson, well, first of all you seem to be confident you're going to get up to seven senators. That’s a pretty big call, isn’t it?

PAULINE HANSON: We've got four and possibly up to seven seats, right, that we could win. Yes, it is. It’s going to have a big impact.

TONY JONES: Have you sent a thank you note to Malcolm Turnbull?

PAULINE HANSON: I’ve been campaigning for the last 18 years, so I think I’ve put a lot of work into it and I’ve got to say thank you to Malcolm Turnbull for actually creating a double dissolution.

TONY JONES: A double dissolution.

PAULINE HANSON: Plus also changing the voting reform package that is actually more democratic to the voters and rather than the major political parties controlling the preferences. But the whole fact is, yes, it is going to be a huge responsibility to take my place in the Senate with the other Senators. I have always said, right from the very beginning, that I will support anyone who is elected to the Government, right, who is the Government, which is Malcolm Turnbull. Now, in so far as to say that if they pass legislation that I believe is right for Australia and the Australian people they will get my full support. If I don't, then I will look at making amendments to the changes and I will explain to the people why. Peter was so right, this is why the major political parties lost so many votes at this election, because people are fed up with the major political parties. They feel they haven't been listened to and their voice has not been heard. So many changes need to be made in this country and right across the board every time I'm out in the public there is another issue and another issue. I have pushed, since prior to the election and since, about changes to the Family Law Act


and I mentioned that in my maiden speech, nothing has happened with that. I'm pleased to see now that the National Party are actually taking it up and looking at changing the legislation to it, which I want to work with them on it and I will be putting up my own policies.

TONY JONES: So, well, we won't go into the detail of that but let me ask you this, in a general sense...

PAULINE HANSON: Yeah.

TONY JONES: I'll ask the same question to Nick Xenophon. Will you use your voting power to force change or will you just try and negotiate slowly over time with the government to see if you can incremental change things? Because you could be in a position to actually say, "Well, I'm not going to vote for your major pieces of Budget legislation," or all sorts of other things unless you do what I want.

PAULINE HANSON: Tony, no, I won't do that and I don't think that's right. I think what it's all about - if they put up legislation that is correct and I believe is right for the people, I will support that. To be in this position is very important for the people. The people are relying on me and my other Senators and every other Senator in that parliament to make the right decision for their wellbeing and their future and I don't believe you sell your soul because you might, you know, make a little bit of gain somewhere else. You have to be there for accountability and honesty and for the people and I'll always say that.

TONY JONES: Okay, very briefly because the first test will come soon when there's a joint sitting of the House, will your Senators vote for the ABCC, the building corruption Commission.

PAULINE HANSON: I think it needs...

TONY JONES: Which was at the centre of the double dissolution.

PAULINE HANSON: It was.

TONY JONES: Will you vote for it?

PAULINE HANSON: Tony, I haven't had a chance to look at the legislation on it. I haven't even moved into an office. I don't have staff. I don't have resources. That’s what the other Senators have to be informed of what the bill is. I would like to sit down and have a talk with the unions and I would like to have a talk with the small businesses as well. It is apparently not working and we – and, you know, I want to know what is the best way to move forward with this. You can't have unions dictating and controlling small business and running of the country or the Government so you have to find the balance there.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Well, I think we've got a partial answer there. Now, let's go to the next largest...

LARISSA WATERS: Yeah, thanks, Tony.

TONY JONES: Well, in fact the largest voting - independent voting bloc. Or the Greens are not an independent voting bloc, they're the largest party on the crossbench.


LARISSA WATERS: Thanks, Tony.

TONY JONES: So what is the Greens' position going to be?

LARISSA WATERS: Thanks Tony and thanks, Peter for your question. I think you're right to point out that the support for major parties has been dropping and you echo the sentiment of so many other people who have started to look elsewhere. What has been mentioned and raised with me many, many times is that people feel that the big parties are not governing for the community anymore or thinking about the environment. They're simply doing the bidding of the very large donors that contribute to their political coffers and whether that's the gambling industry, in some cases the tobacco industry, of course the fossil fuel sector - the coal mining companies make very generous contributions - whether that's property developers, those people get their views heard, they get access to Ministers, they get to topple Prime Ministers in some cases. They get their agenda through the parliament but the community, the environment, the fact that it's meant to be a representative democracy seems to be easily forgotten in the wake of those golden rivers of dollars that flow through, so I think that's part of the reason why the support for the big parties is dropping. I want to come back to a point that Ms Hanson raised earlier. I don't actually think that people supported her party because they share her racist views. I think what's happening is the economy is changing and people are nervous about it changing and they're feeling left behind, particularly in regional areas, and I think what they haven't heard from either of the big parties is a plan for how we can bring people along in that change. That change to a clean-energy economy that we know the world is making. They feel left behind. They don't know what their place is. There's been a third of the coal workforce already sacked by the big coal companies. Now where is the plan for their future? They could have a prosperous future in clean-energy, in all sorts of other sunrise industries.

TONY JONES: Well, today you got...

LARISSA WATERS: But the government isn’t planning for that.

TONY JONES: You got someone to negotiate with on both sides of the equation because an Environment Minister, who is also the Minister for Energy?

LARISSA WATERS: Well, that's right and I have mixed views about that. I think if we had a parliament that wasn't hostage to fossil fuel donations, that would be wonderful combination and a powerful one because obviously the key to environmental health and economic health is tackling global warming, the biggest challenge that the whole world is facing, and that's where we know our prosperity will lie and where genuine job creation will come in, but we're not hearing even that rhetoric, let alone the actual transition plans from the major parties.

TONY JONES: Okay, I’m going to move onto our...

LARISSA WATERS: So I think that’s – that’s why folk have been so discontented.

TONY JONES: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. I’m going to move onto our next question, which is on this subject. We’ll bring in the major parties on this one, from Laura Holt. THE CROSSBENCH AND THE BUDGET


LAURA HOLT: Good evening, Senators. As the Coalition and Opposition are not capable of a significant reduction in Government spending of about $30 billion a year for the next three years, should the crossbench take up this challenge and consequently save the pension system, the NDIS, Medicare and health and education funding, because when the money runs out, there will be no money for these services?

TONY JONES: Let's start with Simon Birmingham first. Now, I mean, do you accept the premise there that you need to save $30 billion a year in order to save the big services which people expect: health, education and so on?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, we know that the Budget is under pressure, Laura, and you absolutely hit the nail on the head there that there are significant savings required to still realise, ultimately, the Budget projections we have to bring the Budget back to surplus. Now, Labor went to the election proposing a raft of tax increases and that was their model to ultimately perhaps get to surplus that would have put us on a path to have the highest level of taxation as a percentage of the economy in the nation's history essentially. We rejected that. That's not our approach. We think Australia, as a whole, pays enough tax at present. We're committed in the last budget to make sure we do more about multinational tax evasion too, to make the superannuation tax system fairer and to deal with some excesses there. We want to make sure that the tax reform we have is fair but we don't want to grow the actual scale of taxation in Australia, because that can only harm our competitiveness. That does mean we need to restrain spending so that we can guarantee ongoing support for Medicare, for schools, for the NDIS, for the types of services you identified and, yes, I think the question does then come to obviously we have to work cooperatively with whomever in the Senate, the Labor Party if they're willing to actually honour the areas they said they'd deliver a savings, the Greens if they're willing to, any of the crossbenchers as to how it is we can realise the types of savings that are required but it takes two or potentially a lot more than two in the new Senate to tango and, you know, we will – you know, we will need them to be part of the solution. We can hopefully extend successfully the olive branch to those willing to work with us to realise savings but they will have to be willing to come on that journey as well or else the type of concern, broken system if you like, Peter, that you spoke about in your question, will only get deeper as time goes on if, in fact, no agreement can be reached.

TONY JONES: Okay, well, I'm going to go to the other major party representative. Now, Sam Dastyari, will the Labor Party join in a kind of crusade to cut Government spending?

SAM DASTYARI: We're certainly prepared to join in a crusade to actually pass as much legislation as we can and, you know, look if this was - someone needs to maybe, perhaps, remind Simon the election is over. You won. Congratulations.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: So, Sam, just...

SAM DASTYARI: No, no, no, no, no, no.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Would it start with you guys supporting the areas of savings that you adopted yourselves?


SAM DASTYARI: Here's what we wouldn't support: a ...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: No, no.

SAM DASTYARI: No, no, no. No, no, no. Let me – I will get to this. A $50 billion tax cut for big business, 7.5 billion...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: You just told me the election is over.

SAM DASTYARI: No, no, 7.5 billion of which is going to go towards the four big banks, is not the right approach, no. But what we will do is this and, you know, you talked about it takes two to tango or perhaps even more in this Senate and, Simon, I will always dance with you. We are completely genuine.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Who's choosing the music?

TONY JONES: Okay.

SAM DASTYARI: '90s or '80s? What are we going to do?

TONY JONES: Sam – Sam, can I just interrupt you?

SAM DASTYARI: I just don’t think you can...

(MULTIPLE PEOPLE TALK AT ONCE)

TONY JONES: But right now you're doing more talking than dancing, so can you just get to the point of which measures you will actually pass?

SAM DASTYARI: The measures that we took to this election, we intend to be passing through the Senate and but, at the same time, we will work with the Government to do the measures that need to happen, provided that they fit within the platform of what we took to the election campaign.

TONY JONES: So will you roll over on the superannuation reforms? That’s one of their – their taxing promises?

SAM DASTYARI: Well, what we said regarding the superannuation reforms going into the election was that we took the Government at face value in what they said, said that we need to do a proper review as they went into care-taker. The problem the Government has currently on superannuation matters is actually their own backbench and their own MPs but we were very clear going into the campaign that there does need to be a look at this issue of retrospectivity but, beyond that, those measures that are reasonable will be supported and Mr Shorten and Mr - and the Prime Minister, as I understand, have both made it very clear that in this new Senate we should be working together.

TONY JONES: Okay. Now, you want to hear an answer to the specific question you put so let’s hear, because I think you did say you would answer the question as to whether you would support the measures you previously supported?

SAM DASTYARI: Of course, we'll support the measure that we took to the election.


SIMON BIRMINGHAM: So the savings measures of ours that you changed your mind on during the election campaign, you will now support?

SAM DASTYARI: The measure that we took to the election and we got a mandate from the Australian people on, are our measures.

TONY JONES: Sorry, is that a slippery answer?

SAM DASTYARI: No, not at all. I just want to be a bit a clearer.

TONY JONES: Or is that – are you...

LARISSA WATERS: No, they’ve done a massive back flip.

TONY JONES: So you’ve done a - you actually have back flipped on this then?

LARISSA WATERS: Yeah.

SAM DASTYARI: We have taken a series of measures to the election, we got a mandate from the Australian people and they are party platform. That is what we took to the polls. That is for Bill Shorten’s election.

TONY JONES: So are you convinced that you are actually on the same page here?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I'm hopeful. I'm very hopeful from what I hear Sam say.

SAM DASTYARI: And from what...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Now – now, admittedly, he talks about the clarity of the superannuation position they took to the election where, in fact, Labor’s position was we'll bank the savings the Government says but if we get elected we're not quite sure how we'll deliver those savings.

SAM DASTYARI: No, we said we’ll take you at face value and we’ll do a review.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Yeah, well, you said you...

TONY JONES: No, no.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: And you had problems with the (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: I’m sorry, but Simon...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: But regardless...

TONY JONES: Simon Birmingham, you're reviewing this yourself, aren’t you, the retrospective part of it? Isn't that what – what Scott Morrison is doing right now, because there's such a backlash in your own party about the retrospectivity issue?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Look, Tony, there are some technical concerns that might be tweaked but that’s, you know...

TONY JONES: So is retrospectivity, in principle, a technical concern or is it in fact...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, no, no, I mean...

TONY JONES: ...there’s simply retrospectivity.


SIMON BIRMINGHAM: ...I didn’t want to get into debate. I, you know...

(MULTIPLE PEOPLE TALK AT ONCE)

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: I reject – I reject – I reject the argument of the other side. I reject the argument that the proposals are retrospective.

SAM DASTYARI: Your own backbenchers don’t.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Retrospective tax changes as, in fact, the Prime Minister explained on 7.30 on this network only a couple of hours ago...

TONY JONES: All right. You can – you can have this argument in the party room. Let’s hear from the other panellists and Pauline Hanson?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Oh, okay. Well, refer to the Prime Minister’s transcript then, I think, on that one.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Pauline Hanson, so there’s a whole series of things here and Sam Dastyari raised one of them, the $50 billion tax cut to business, which was a key part of the Government's platform. Will you support that?

PAULINE HANSON: And that goes out for how many years, Sam, okay?

SAM DASTYARI: Ten.

PAULINE HANSON: That's right, exactly ten. So we're talking about now. We need to address it now. The amount of money that this country owes, we cannot keep going the way we're going, paying 13.5 billion a year in interest alone on our debt. The thing is they talk about the age of entitlements is over. Well, let's start with the parliament at the top from the politicians. Let's prove to the rest of the country that we can actually rein in our belts and start saving monies.

TONY JONES: But does that...

PAULINE HANSON: No, this - this...

TONY JONES: Can I just - can I just interrupt there?

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: Does that mean – sorry. Thank you. Does that mean that the $50 billion tax cut over ten years, that you'll reject that because it’s...

PAULINE HANSON: That is – that is not – no.

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: That's small business, okay.

LARISSA WATERS: No, it's not. (Indistinct) the definition.

PAULINE HANSON: That's going out over ten years. What I've got to say is that a lot of the other spending that – that the government’s...


TONY JONES: So do you support that then? So just very briefly, do you support that one?

PAULINE HANSON: In principle, no, I don't, the way it is, no. I think there's other cuts that could be made that we need to do now, not over a period of ten years and I think that we need to do it. Foreign aid that we're giving - even monies that we're giving to corrupt countries that we need to look at where that money is going and rein that in. We need to look at the welfare bill, $180 billion a year. That needs to be investigated because I think it's rorted with the welfare bill. That needs to be investigated as well. There's so many other - even Government contracts and jobs, they are actually out of control and I want to see accountability of what we're paying, the taxpayers' dollars, to get these jobs done.

TONY JONES: Okay. Now, I’m going to go quickly to...

LARISSA WATERS: Can I come in on this one?

TONY JONES: ...Nick Xenophon, because I'd just like to hear your position on whether the Government actually has a mandate for all the savings measures.

NICK XENOPHON: The Governments have a mandate to introduce legislation and the Senate has a mandate to scrutinise that legislation. That's how I see it.

(APPLAUSE)

NICK XENOPHON: And...

TONY JONES: Do you have a mandate, given the way the Senate is set up, to reject whatever you want to reject?

NICK XENOPHON: Well, if a majority of the Senate rejects it, then that's – it’s a brutal arithmetic of it but I'll work constructively with the Government. We need to look at reinventing government in the 21st Century in this country. We need more transparent government, more accountable government. We need to make sure that money isn't wasted but I'll work with good - in good faith with the Government.

TONY JONES: Is a $50 billion tax cut to business, small and large, wasted?

NICK XENOPHON: I'll support – well, I’ll support it up to $10 million but right now we are facing a tsunami of job...

TONY JONES: 10 billion.

NICK XENOPHON: We are - 10 million.

TONY JONES: Oh, 10 million. 10 million.

NICK XENOPHON: 10 million, not...

TONY JONES: Sorry, (indistinct) for 10 million businesses.

LARISSA WATERS: Yeah, for the business.


NICK XENOPHON: 10 million.

TONY JONES: 10 million size of the business.

NICK XENOPHON: We are facing a tsunami of job losses in this country, up to 200,000 jobs will be lost when the auto sector closes down at the end of next year. That, to me, is a greater priority for Government involvement than a big tax cut.

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: And Larissa Waters?

LARISSA WATERS: Yes, thank you, Laura, for your question. I thought it was an interesting one that you focused on cuts when, in fact, what we hear a lot of talk about is cuts but we don't hear lot of talk about revenue raising. Now, we put a whole raft of revenue raising proposals throughout the course of the campaign, including getting rid of the 24 billion over the forward estimates that’s four years, in free money that goes to the fossil fuel sector in things like cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation. Nobody else gets those sorts of perks. $24 billion, there's one saving for you. 50 billion of course for the company tax cuts.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Free money is a fair, you know - this is, you know, this is about whether or not – you know, the extent of tax that Australian businesses pay and the more tax you make Australian businesses pay, the less competitive they'll be on the world stage.

LARISSA WATERS: Well, you did...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: That’s the reality of it, Larissa.

LARISSA WATERS: They're not paying much tax and you're just giving it all back to them.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, no. No, those businesses are...

LARISSA WATERS: It doesn’t really work so well.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Those business are paying taxes in royalties. They're paying taxes in company tax. Their employees are paying income tax. They're paying GST.

LARISSA WATERS: And they're cooking – and they’re cooking the planet with climate change, which is going to cost us all.

TONY JONES: Just briefly doing the sums for you here, I'm not sure quite how they work out but if Pauline Hanson did have seven Senators and she doesn't want the business tax cult element of it, if Nick Xenophon doesn’t and his Senators, if the Greens don’t and Labor doesn't, doesn't that mean your biggest policy is sunk?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, Tony, we will put...

SAM DASTYARI: What an episode.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: We will put our policies to the parliament and we’ll work with each of the crossbenchers and you've heard from Nick that he is willing to


talk about elements of that policy. I think you've heard from Pauline sympathy for small business and Australian small business.

PAULINE HANSON: Definitely.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: And certainly the type of tax cuts that we are talking about over the next few years are tax cuts that would overwhelmingly benefit family-owned Australian businesses.

TONY JONES: But it’s a very simple question on the numbers here. It doesn't look like you've got the numbers...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I don’t...

TONY JONES: ...to get the $50 billion tax cut through. Right or wrong?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, I don't accept...

PAULINE HANSON: What I want to know...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: ...that we won't get anything through, Tony.

TONY JONES: No.

PAULINE HANSON: ...(Indistinct)...

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: And that is exactly what we will do.

TONY JONES: No, no. I'm talking about the full 50 billion, your big policy at the election?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: Well, our policy at the election was staged over ten years, as we've talked about on this panel tonight.

TONY JONES: So you're ready to compromise on this?

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: We have said all along since election night that, of course, we will work with the parliament we're given. We'll negotiate and work with the crossbenchers in a spirit of good faith. We'll present our policies as we took them to the election.

LARISSA WATERS: Maybe not super though. You might touch that one.

SIMON BIRMINGHAM: We’ll present our policies as we took them to the election, including super, Larissa.

SAM DASTYARI: (Indistinct)

PAULINE HANSON: As long as it creates jobs, you know, the tax cuts but that's something that I need to look at. It’s - I'm not going to make policy on the run here. I haven't been in parliament. I haven't had the resources. I haven't had access to, you know, the offices of the Prime Minister or to actually get the briefing with all this, so I'm not going to make policy on the run here but if I can see that these tax cuts or whatever is going to create jobs, that's what we need get this country going and infrastructure.

TONY JONES: Who would you...


PAULINE HANSON: And infrastructure.

TONY JONES: Who would you want to hear that from? Whose opinion would...

PAULINE HANSON: Well, actually Scott Morrison – Scott Morrison rang me up...

TONY JONES: You’d accept Scott Morrison’s...

PAULINE HANSON: ...and he said...

TONY JONES: Okay.

PAULINE HANSON: ...he would give me access to the Treasury and actually the budget, so to give me a briefing on that to see what it's about and it's a huge job to do it and I'm not going to sit here and tell you I'm going to, you know, knock it back or not going to do it. To make an informed opinion - decision about it, I will wait until I get in there and get a briefing from the Government and make an informed decision about it.

TONY JONES: So would you regard...

PAULINE HANSON: The whole things about...

TONY JONES: Well, would you regard...

PAULINE HANSON: ...we have to get infrastructure projects going...

TONY JONES: Sorry to interrupt.

PAULINE HANSON: ...jobs going in this country. I wish you would look at, you know, I have a policy which is far better to get apprenticeship schemes going. I will present that to the Government to look at this, because I think that's where we need to address it, get industry, manufacturing going, get the country going again. You know, you talk about the Greens and climate change, you're shutting down this country. You're creating more of a cost...

(APPLAUSE)

PAULINE HANSON: Yeah, you nearly fell off the stool because you agree with me. Because you're creating more of a cost. Your average...

LARISSA WATERS: It's not us shutting the coal industry down, Pauline, it’s the global market.

PAULINE HANSON: ... everyday families out of their increased cost. You know, the whole - even climate change, that needs to be debated. Let's have the true facts about this as well.

LARISSA WATERS: Oh, we know – we know that you don’t accept...

TONY JONES: Okay.

SAM DASTYARI: But, it doesn’t mean...

LARISSA WATERS: ...the fact of climate science but everybody else does.


SAM DASTYARI: Ms Hanson, on the $50 billion cuts, when you meet with Treasury, just ask this one question.

PAULINE HANSON: Yes.

SAM DASTYARI: How many billion of it are going to the four big banks? Just ask that one question, please.

PAULINE HANSON: I will ask that question as well.

SAM DASTYARI: Thank you.

PAULINE HANSON: And I'd like to know why the pair of you - I said 20 years ago that multinationals were not paying their tax in this country. You come into the budget last year of 3.9 billion that you'll collect over – over the next, what, three years. That is peanuts compared to what they should be paying in this country. You're out by hundreds of millions of dollars.

(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm really sorry to say to everybody on the panel that's all we have time for tonight and on the evidence of tonight, it’s certainly going to be a very interesting Senate. Please thank our panel: Sam Dastyari, Pauline Hanson, Larissa Waters, Simon Birmingham, Nick Xenophon.


Attachment BComplaint

Complaint to the broadcaster dated 21 July 2016:

[…]

I wish to complain about Tony Jones' presentation last Monday Night. I feel he should be brought into line in order to ensure this show is portrayed fairly.

I have never voted for Pauline Hanson but after Mondays Q&A program I will in the future.

Tony Jones interjected, contradicted and undermined her answers throughout the show, whilst allowing questions obviously loaded to attempt to catch her out from both the audience and other participants. Pauline came out on top and handled the situation well.

Are the presenters of this program petrified to offend the Muslim Religion? Why? Are they too young to remember how Hitler insidiously caused a world war because countries failed to intervene. Pauline certainly has the courage to voice the concerns of the majority, which is not (that dreaded word) “prejudice”. Its common sense for our survival.

Complaint to the ACMA dated 19 August 2016:

[…]

If you view the Q & A program on 18th July 2015 and again on 7th August, 2016 you will understand my complaint. Both programs, hosted by Tony Jones certainly were not impartial, and encouraged a very one sided view.


Attachment CBroadcaster’s response and submissions

ABC response to the complainant dated 18 August 2016:

Thank you for your email regarding the edition of Q&A broadcast on 18 July 2016.

Your email has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards. These standards are explained in our Code of Practice which is available here - http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/. The ABC’s impartiality standards are set out in section 4. They include the requirement for a diversity of perspectives to be presented over time and prohibit the undue favouring of one perspective over others.

We have reviewed the program and raised your concerns with the program team.

The program aired in the days immediately following the Nice terror atrocity and the program team has advised that most of the audience questions it received went to the panellists’ perspectives on radicalisation, terror and Islam. This was reflected in the questions selected for the program.

Q&A is a live and energetic program and the moderator plays an important role in managing and facilitating the discussion. As host of the program it is Tony Jones’ duty to ensure that audience members can put their questions to the panel and, as much as possible, have them answered. This will often include the host asking follow-up questions to draw out a more complete answer, and at times panellists will be interrupted to allow points to be clarified. These are routine aspects of the program and audiences can be expected to be familiar with this approach to moderation. Having reviewed the program, we are satisfied that the host’s moderation of the 18 July program demonstrated fair treatment and open-mindedness and was duly impartial.

Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, www.acma.gov.au.


investig… · web viewyou know we are a christian country and i don't believe that islam is...

Documents