TONY JONES: Good evening. Welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: the President of the Victorian Young Liberals, the IPA's Simon Breheny; human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, who also represents Julian Assange; Canadian professor of theology and culture, John Stackhouse, who will deliver a lecture here entitled "Are Christians Dumb, Delusional and Dangerous?; assistant Minister for Education Sussan Ley; and former Labor minister and could have been Prime Minister, Greg Combet. Please welcome our panel.

Thank you. Q&A is simulcast on ABC News 24 and News Radio and a special welcome to News Radio listeners tonight, since this week marks the 20th anniversary of the News Radio network. Happy birthday. And you can join the Twitter conversation by using the #qanda hash tag. Remember, if you have a live question, add @qanda to help us find it. Well, our first question tonight comes from Amanda Holt.

GAMMY'S DAD

AMANDA HOLT: Hi, Tony. Hi, panel. The story of baby Gammy and his Thai surrogate mother has actually captured global attention and exposed the murky world of surrogacy. My question is how does a convicted child paedophile that made a decision, he didn't make a mistake, he decided to molest four or more children, how can he be provided access to vulnerable women and children overseas? Like, where are the federal police and customs in this? And shouldn't there be a law forbidding such people from leaving the country, ever?

TONY JONES: Sussan Ley?

SUSSAN LEY: Thank you for your question, and these are essentially matters of state law, so my opinions reflect very much my personal view. But can I say, as the country's childcare Minister, this person would not pass a working with children check or be allowed in any childcare centre in Australia because of the risk that they pose. And while instinctively I feel, gosh, no one is beyond redemption, if you have committed sexual crimes against children, then there are rights that you have to give up, and I'm sorry, but I think this person should have given up those rights. So...

TONY JONES: What, do you mean the right to bring up a family, the right to have a child, is that what you mean?

SUSSAN LEY: Look, he has three adult children, but this commercial arrangement by which a child is entering into his life and that of his wife, and I make no comment about their relationship, I think it's extremely problematic and it is very unsettling, and I'm worried, too, for all of the people who are in the middle of surrogacy arrangements in Thailand at the moment and those are genuine arrangements and, you know, we should never say how or to what extent somebody should go to have a family. This is not about the issue of surrogacy for me, this is about the issue of, I agree, a convicted paedophile having access to a child through what is essentially a commercial arrangement, and I'm sorry, I don't like it.

TONY JONES: So, just to go back to the question, do you believe the laws surrounding this should be re-worked, re-thought?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, look, the laws are different in every state. I mean, in New South Wales, for example, you can't enter into these arrangements as this fellow and his wife have from WA and this is complicated by the law in Thailand. So, we have to be careful that we don't just march in ham-fisted from the Federal Government and say, "We are making this set of arrangements to address this problem," because the issues are sensitive and complex and we have to be careful because people - we are talking about children. But ultimately that's the point, Tony. We are talking about the rights of children. It is not about the rights of somebody to have children. It's about the rights of that child in the world in which they enter and the circumstances in which they find themselves. So, look, I think, like a lot of Australians, I was very unsettled by the story of baby Gammy. I'm heartened by the outpouring of support for the child and for the surrogate mother in Thailand and for people's concern generally. So it has brought out some good, as well as, I think, some problems.

TONY JONES: Greg Combet?

GREG COMBET: Well, it's a shocking set of events and I think we'll probably be talking a little bit tonight about the intrusion of the state in another context in people's rights and the question that Amanda asks sort of tends to suggest, well, why isn't the state intruding more into this area to safeguard people and it's just an extremely difficult area to regulate. I'm not quite sure how we can legislate within Australia for these circumstances, when people are engaging in surrogacy agreements with others internationally. It requires state-to-state cooperation, police forces cooperating with each other in different countries, complimentary legislation and we are here in a federated arrangement, whereas Sussan just said these are essentially state law matters that we're dealing with. So it has thrown up, you know, a very complex set of questions, both morally and legally, that I think need to be grappled with, because the circumstances really are shocking.

TONY JONES: Jen Robinson, you're a human rights lawyer. Whose human rights are at stake in this case, do you think?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Obviously the child in question and the children that might be exposed to somebody who has such a criminal record being allowed access to surrogacy procedures. But I think the real question here, quite separate from the question of his criminal background, is ensuring that people who do want to seek out surrogacy arrangements, which I think are a legitimate choice for many couples who are seeking to have children, is that you investigate and take legal advice on the different jurisdictional requirements in which you are seeking to seek a surrogate from and, importantly are very clear about the terms upon which you are about to enter this agreement, because obviously there was quite some confusion about what would happen with one of the children, who would have custody in what circumstances and this should not be left open to any question.

TONY JONES: It's extremely ugly in this case, isn't it, because one child is left behind, the child is disabled, the parents appear to have not, or that is the surrogate parents let's say, appear to have not even made contact over a period of time to try and find out how that baby is, baby Gammy?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think the entire story is incredibly troubling both, as Greg says, from a moral and legal perspective. I think many Australians are very upset about it but, again, I think, for all those parents out there or potential parents who are seeking to engage in surrogacy agreements, they really should be taking legal advice and making sure that these sorts of uncertainties are avoided.

TONY JONES: Simon Breheny?

SIMON BREHENY: To watch this whole episode unravel over the last few days has been really an unmitigated tragedy. It has been quite heartbreaking to watch the scenes that we've seen on TV and we've seen pictures of baby Gammy come over and his mother. It has been a terrible thing to watch. The thing that I think Tony Abbott said earlier in the week or late last week was that they want to be careful in changing these laws around - there are problems around this particular set of circumstances, but it's important to recognise that surrogacy arrangements often happen in safe and secure ways. Often parents turn to international surrogacy when they are in the most desperate of circumstances and often those arrangements work out quite well for both the surrogate parents and for the parents back at home. So, it's important to take all of those things into consideration, I think, when the Government is looking at changing these laws, but it has been a tragedy to watch this unfold.

TONY JONES: John Stackhouse, almost sort of unique internationally, this case, because of its bizarre nature. What do you think, looking at it, what are the moral implications from your point of view?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, indeed the sort of soap opera nature of new revelations every day getting more and more estranged does complicate the situation somewhat and as the politicians and lawyers do have to work out all of those complexities at those levels but some things actually are pretty simple. I mean the welfare of the poor and the welfare of the vulnerable have to come first. Children do have to come first in this case and the poor have to be protected against the rich and some of those things are pretty simple. And so when the laws get revised, they can't be revised, it seems to be me, morally on behalf of parents who can afford to pay to get what they like. It's really not about adults getting what they like, it's supposed to be about families growing but especially the protection of the babies involved and the vulnerable mothers. If they are not protected, it really doesn't matter what else is done.

TONY JONES: Were you shocked the nature of this story and the way it's unfolded or do you expect things like this to happen when these laws become more widely used?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, there are about six layers to this story, all of which seem Hollywoodesque in their bizarreness. So, no, I can't say I expected it at all, Tony, not even in Australia.

TONY JONES: Okay, we're going to move on because we have a lot of questions on different subjects. The next one from Justin Read.

PREJUDICE

JUSTIN READ: Thanks, Tony. The Government displays various frightening prejudices. Senator Brandis defends bigotry, Senator Abetz alleges breast cancer links with abortion, despite the medical evidence and Minister Kevin Andrews is soon to open and close the conference of the World Congress of Families, an anti-gay group according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre and is their international ambassador. How can Australia develop as a multicultural and inclusive society when its government disrespects and targets Australians based on prejudice and misinformation?

TONY JONES: Sussan Ley?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, with great respect, I don't accept with the premise on which your question is based. And, I mean, prejudices are found everywhere and we, as a Government, will always fight against prejudice and if you say who can go to what conference, who can associate with what people, what that says about them or their allegiances with particular interests, you know, that all acts against freedom of association and freedom of speech. Now, I may not agree with all of my colleagues on everything but, within the Liberal Party, we are a broad church, and one of the good things we do is reflect the views of a group of ordinary Australians. So, if you like, I might talk to Senator Abetz about something that we have in common or we might disagree vehemently on something else but we're colleagues within the Government, we support each other and overall we represent what Australians think and feel and I actually think that's a strength.

TONY JONES: What about - what about a very specific issue of breast cancer and abortion, the science around it, brought up by Eric Abetz? I presume you don't agree with that?

SUSSAN LEY: I do not agree that there's a link in any way between abortion and breast cancer. But I also recognise that Senator Abetz wasn't saying that that's what he thought. So I'm not here running a commentary on what my colleagues think and if he says that that's not what he was saying, he was merely airing those views, then he was merely airing those views. I probably wouldn't have aired those views, by the way, but, you know, I don't think it's my responsibility to decide what's right or wrong in the comments that are made and the strength we have as a society is that there are this enormous range of opinions that we all hold but it's a particular strength, I think, of the Liberal and National parties. It is why we have always had the freedom to cross the floor. It's why we have such freedom to disagree. It's why eventually the policy that comes out is a mesh of so many different viewpoints thrashed out behind closed doors but representing the broad cross-section (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: I guess if those views had stayed behind closed doors and not been transmitted on a television broadcast, that would be slightly different. The questioner asked about the World Congress of Families and they do, in fact, openly support Russia's anti-gay laws, what they call the homosexual propaganda law, that organisation. Does it disturb you at all that a minister would open a conference of that nature or open a conference with people who have that belief, let's put it that way?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, we, as ministers and members of Parliament, present at a range of different fora. So we may go to a forum where we don't agree with everything that's said, and I think that's the point that Senator Abetz was making on that occasion. So, it's not appropriate to say, "Well, you shouldn't go anywhere near this gathering of people because there are some views there that you don't like." Now, the views that you've just attributed to the World Congress of Families, Tony, I actually don't know anything about the World Congress of Families, so I can't speak with personal knowledge but they're not views I would support at all and they're not views a lot of Australian's would support.

TONY JONES: Yeah. I mean, the director of the World Congress of Families, Larry Jacobs, said, "Those Russian laws are a great idea."

SUSSAN LEY: Well, I don't agree. I don't agree at all. In fact, I think that's a reprehensible statement if, indeed, it was made. But, again, I'm not going to be saying what members of parliament should be attending what conferences and I frequently go to conferences where views are expressed that I don't agree with. I think we might have some childcare questions later and I attend many childcare conferences and there is a lot of disagreement. So it's all part of free speech, freedom of association, saying what you think, thrashing out ideas in public and the general debate.

TONY JONES: We'll just quickly go back to our questioner, Sussan, because he has his hand up. Go ahead.

JUSTIN READ: There is a big difference between attending a conference and opening and closing the conference and there is also a big difference between attending the conference and being the international ambassador for the organisation. The Southern Poverty Law Centre - the Southern Poverty Law Centre has designated this as an anti-gay group, right, and he is their international ambassador. I have a real issue with a cabinet minister - a cabinet minister with responsibility for social services - publicly endorsing and being an ambassador for an anti-gay group.

TONY JONES: All right. Now, we want to hear from the other panellists but a quick response to that?

SUSSAN LEY: Look, it's called the World Congress of Families and I know that Kevin Andrews is very committed to the family institution. And I'm not running a commentary on why he may or may not be attending, except to say that I know that about him. And I also know that I attend conferences and, in fact, make welcoming remarks to international delegates and then might walk away and do something else because it's about welcoming the conference and some of the aims and objectives that it contains. It's not about signing up to everything that it may say and I think it's important that we understand that distinction.

TONY JONES: John Stackhouse, do you know this organisation? I don't know whether - they are an American organisation, you're a Canadian, so I shouldn't immediately suggest that you do but...

JOHN STACKHOUSE: No, I'm actually familiar with everything that happens in North America, Tony.

TONY JONES: Yeah. I just hoped you might be.

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Absolutely.

TONY JONES: But in this case not.

JOHN STACKHOUSE: No, happily not. No.

TONY JONES: What about the general notion that politicians are getting involved with, well, let's say conservative religious organisations because that certainly does happen in Canada?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Yes, and I think in every case I think the label of conservative or liberal doesn't help us very much. I mean there are intelligent, conservative people of apparent goodwill and capability. There are liberal people and you notice I'm not even bothering to define conservative and liberal, whether Australian or Canadian or an American context.

TONY JONES: Are you saying they can't be defined?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: No. No. I'm just saying that I - in this case I don't need to bother because I think that within what I understand to be your political spectrum and ours, there are people of intelligence and goodwill happily across that spectrum. Some of them seem more manifestly intelligent on some days than others but, still, there is that spectrum. I'm willing to grant that. So I think in that case, that's great that people are represented all the way across the line. However, in any particular case, there may be some danger zones and, in Canada, what we've had to deal with is a little bit of scaremongering. Some of our Canadian journalists don't have enough to do so they look at America and they look at the wildest forums of the religious right and then they excitedly suggest that this is happening in Canada as well and, unfortunately, Canada is much duller than that and, in fact, there really isn't very much on the religious right but there is a little. There is a little fire under the smoke and there is a religious right that is quite theocratic. I mean, if they could they really would make Canada Christian again and I think that's quite problematic. As a Christian myself, I think that the idea that Christians run the country, well, we've had a chance to do that a number of times over the last 2,000 years and the record is pretty chequered actually. You know, we didn't run South Africa all that well and we had trouble in imperial Russia making sure everybody was looked after and there were those few bits of European history where Christians ran the show and didn't necessarily came off unscathed. So as a Christian myself, I'm not entirely sure we are trustworthy with the whole package. I think, in fact, it's best to have a diversity of views and keep each other honest and that's why I think the right wing theocrats, whether they're Christian or Muslim or whether their even narrow-minded folk like Richard Dawkins, who thinks that only people like him should run the show. I think, no, it's good to keep everybody (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: I should have mentioned, in fact, that the title of your speech is a quote from Richard Dawkins, the atheist?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: As it turns out, yes.

TONY JONES: Jennifer, would you like to pick that up? Well, go with the question that's been asked here, really, and the suggestion is that a number of religious groups have too much influence, really, in Australia?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, I think traditionally Australia has been very reticent to have any involvement of religion in politics and I think the Australian public still feels quite strongly to that bent. But to the point made earlier, I think there is a distinction, and it was an excellent distinction made by the questioner, between this freedom of speech idea about participating on a panel in a conference and debating and having an open debate in a democracy about people's views on the gay community or on religious views, and another thing entirely in terms of endorsing the conference by introducing it and closing it. So, of course, free speech requires that we have an open debate, particularly about social values in any society, but for a member of government who is responsible for social services to get up and endorse by attending this conference and opening and closing it, views which are an affront to the dignity of the gay community of our society and, I think, a breach of their human rights, I think is a really serious question.

TONY JONES: Simon Breheny?

SIMON BREHENY: Well, I certainly don't agree with some of the things that have been said by Liberal Ministers over the last little while and certainly Eric Abetz's comments linking breast cancer with abortion were absurd. But I don't think that we should dismiss the role of religion in political life so quickly. It's certainly true to say that Christianity, in particular, has had a pretty significant impact on the way that Western civilisation has developed over a number of centuries and there are some really positive lessons that can be learnt from Christian moral philosophy. Certainly I think that, in the context of having a debate about a national curriculum in this country and what should and shouldn't go in that curriculum, I think it's important to talk about the moral philosophy of Christianity and whether that should be a part of it. Certainly it has led to things like the abolition of slavery. The idea that everyone is equal and everyone has a soul, that is infused in Christian moral philosophy and that has led to the development of debates like that. So, I think it's important that we understand that there is a history there and the role that Christianity has played in Western civilisation in particular has been a very strong and overwhelmingly positive one over a long period of time.

TONY JONES: And, very briefly, do you have any concerns at all about the World Congress of Families, this organisation which has been discussed here?

SIMON BREHENY: Look, to be honest, I don't know much about the World Congress of Families. It sounds as though there are some pretty controversial views that I wouldn't be associated with. But I think it's positive - it's a positive thing to have politicians involved in civil society groups like this.

TONY JONES: Greg Combet?

GREG COMBET: Well, freedom of speech, of course, is an absolutely critical democratic right but there are important values that are part of a democracy, too, and particularly a democracy like ours, I think, where about a third of our population, I think, don't have English as a first language and so many - there's such a strong history of migration and it's such a complex and diverse society and tolerance and respect for each other, dignity, you know, tending to social cohesion in the way that we conduct our politics, these things are extremely important in our society and one of the problems, I think, that we've seen with the Government is that some members of it - I don't attribute it to all members of the Abbott Government, but a number of members of the Government, I think, are at the right wing edge of politics and they bring that occasionally into their commentary and that's what we've seen and I don't have a problem with people practising their religion and many people of faith go into politics with very good values and motives, but confusing some of these things in this way, I think, is, you know, socially not desirable and I think that Eric Abetz's comments, for example, are really quite appalling. We've got to respect people in our society and respect choices that people make. But with that comes responsibilities, too, and it doesn't mean that it's untrammelled free speech. I mean, it doesn't surprise me that some people think that it's all right to go out and be a bigot. Well, I don't like it. I don't think that that should be something that we say our law protects. Bigoted commentary, racist commentary, discriminatory commentary, prejudicial commentary harms our social cohesion and it's divisive and with rights come responsibilities and a balance in the law and I think the Government completely botched up the debate about the Racial Discrimination Act, as you can see by the back-down, but it's because some of these influences on the far right of politics come into it and I think people in the society are just starting to recognise that that influence is in the Liberal and National parties, notwithstanding some of the traditions that Sussan pointed to.

TONY JONES: John, very briefly, do people have a right to be a bigot? Do you have a sort of theological position on that?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Yes, they do have the right to be a bigot. In fact, it is an important thing for Christians, as well as others, to try not to grant other people less liberty than God does. It's always important not to be more holy than God and if God is willing to allow people to say all sorts of things that he doesn't approve of, we need to be care about that as well. As I looked at 18C this week, of course I feel very much in sympathy with the concern behind the law, but what we are finding in Canada now, a few years after we have legalised same-sex marriage, is that the exact same language that was used to outlaw what we call hate speech regarding racial discrimination is now being used against Christians, Muslims, Jews and others who hold unpolitically correct views about homosexual relations and same-sex marriage, to the point that one of our city councils, for instance, British Columbia, recently forbid anyone who wasn't pro-homosexuality from renting the civic centre for any of their rallies and they had to back down when they were reminded of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, which, apparently, none of the politicians had actually read or understood. This is really troubling. So, yes, of course we decided in Australia, as we've decided in Canada, that racism is a very bad thing. But I am worried about the Government backing down on 18C. I do think that free speech is so precious that we have to be very careful not to pronounce people unable to be bigots, because bigot is always defined by the people who have power and when people in power start saying what you can and can't say I frankly am a little worried about that.

TONY JONES: I am just going to toss that back to Greg Combet. So the argument there is that the laws are the sort of thin edge of the wedge to sort of end personal freedoms?

GREG COMBET: Well, I don't - bigots will be bigots and will express things but they have a responsibility to the society. If you are expressing views that are going to be offensive to members of our society on the basis of some particular characteristics, whether it's ethnicity, race, religion or anything else, you have a responsibility to the social cohesion of the society and that's all that that legislation is trying to do, to put in place a balance for people's rights and their responsibilities and I think it has worked well. I don't think - one of the things that Government failed to do was make a case for why it needed to be changed and when George Brandis attempted to do so, he made a complete botch of it. You know, so what was the motivation behind it? Was it the case involving Andrew Bolt? Was it pressure from News Corporation? I don't know what it was, but the Government did not make a case for that change and the community reacted accordingly.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm just going to bring - we'll move on quickly but you want to respond to that.

SUSSAN LEY: Well, just quickly, Tony, we didn't back down. We listened. I mean, this went out as an exposure draft and Australians had their say and we...

TONY JONES: Did you conclude, by the way, that people do not have the right to be bigots?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, as Greg said, people will be bigots but my concern is that they will be bigots behind closed doors and in dark places. Governments can't do everything. They can't shine a light on everything that happens in every corner of our community and I think we believe very much in the power of community to help with us. But on 18C, we actually listened. We want a united Australia. We - I mean my colleague Ken Wyatt expressed it eloquently last week when he said, "Most people," as he addressed the Liberal and National party rooms, "in this room will never have experience racism, but I have and I've talked to people who have." So when I heard that, I mean, in my head, I believe with the - probably the IPA argument that, look, intellectually this makes perfect sense. It's all about freedom of speech and black letter law, but in my heart, I think I don't know what it feels like to have that prejudice against me. I don't want to be part of a government that makes it easier for a woman wearing a hijab in Western Sydney to walk down the street and feel inferior and at that critical time of their life and their development to feel somehow that there is something wrong with them. I'm happy to stand behind laws that protect those minority groups that may be disadvantaged in certain circumstances from those feelings. So I'm proud of what we did on 18C and I think it actually shows that we are a government that listens and that's a good thing.

TONY JONES: You mean, you are proud you decided not to change it?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, I'm proud that we decided to take the steps that we did to leave 18C where it is and to recognise that a united Australia is the most important thing at this time.

TONY JONES: Okay.

GREG COMBET: Because people felt disrespected, that was the problem. It's not the letter of the law, it's the fact that it was suggested that people would not be respected and people will not accept it.

TONY JONES: I know that Simon probably wants to jump in on this but I think John Stackhouse actually made your argument pretty well. You're watching Q&A. It is time to move along to some other issues, big issues of the week. The next question comes from Ruairi O'Connor?

SYRIA & ISIS

RUAIRI O'CONNOR: Thanks, Tony. President Obama has now committed to US air strikes to stop a genocide in Northern Iraq. I would like to ask the panel whether they agree with Hillary Clinton's assessment that the US decision not to intervene earlier in the Syrian civil war was a failure of US policy? Also, would an earlier intervention in Syria have prevented the current advances of the Islamic State in Iraq?

TONY JONES: Simon, we'll start with you.

SIMON BREHENY: Yeah, I agree that they probably should have gone in a little bit earlier than they have now. There have been some atrocities that we've seen over the last few weeks. It's been very, very clear that this has been going on for some time and it is a real shame where we've gotten to the point now where it's taken so much of this to develop before Obama has decided to do the right thing and support the minorities in northern Iraq and in Syria. It is a tragedy what is unfolding here, and some of the imagery that we've seen has been horrifying and barbaric. What is happening there, I think, is a complete disgrace and I think it's important that the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies back here have the power to go after and to pursue Australians who might have been involved in that theatre of war. It's one of the changes that the Government is now looking at and we're looking at Australian foreign fighters. I think it's really important that they're able to go after those foreign fighters.

AUSSIE JIHADISTS

TONY JONES: Actually, since you raised that, we do have a web question that's come in to us and the web question is from L.S. Su from Mill Park, Victoria. "Aussies fighting un sectarian wars overseas are likely to bring violence back to our shores. Now we've seen pictures of a small boy holding a decapitated head. What can we do to stop these people coming back and should they be disallowed from multiple citizenships?" Jen Robinson, what do you think?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, I think the question, we've seen new introduction - in the bill there is a power now, a new discretionary power to be implemented to cancel passports and I think that is a very serious step to take against an Australian citizen and we've seen that power, I think, abused in the context of the UK's use of it against citizens that have been involved in potential terrorism activities in Somalia. So I think we have to balance those people's rights as citizens and to prosecute them and criminally investigate them and prosecute them as citizens, rather than render them stateless. So I think we have a whole range of police powers that can be used to investigate, to prosecute, to criminally investigate these people and, too, I think that there is a real question about the way in which - the way in which these people are incited to engage in this sort of act and start thinking more broadly about what is it in our society that's driving people to engage in these acts.

TONY JONES: Sussan Ley, I will bring you in and I don't think there would be very many people in the country who wouldn't have been shocked by the pictures on the front pages of The Australian today of a young, probably five or six-year-old boy holding up the decapitated head of an Iraqi soldier, apparently?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: A boy that looked as if he was in his thongs and board shorts, a boy that looked like any boy you would see in an Australian street and there's not many pictures I see that just actually make my stomach turn and that did but it also made me realise how close this war, this terrorist army of the Islamic State is, how close it is to us. I mean we are not removed from these things and the Government is making some very careful and considered steps about protecting Australians from those who may leave our shores to kill other Muslims, for example, overseas, and those who may return from those battlefields, bringing the evil ideas and initiatives with them. And, I mean, just in response to Jen, okay, so you cancel a passport for someone who has two passports, it doesn't render them stateless. It is taking a sensible measure. We would be asking people to demonstrate their rationale and their reasons for doing the things they do. We wouldn't be saying, in a blanket sense, that a group of people can't travel or can't move. I mean, and just remember that all of this is supervised by the Inspector-General of intelligence and security, an independent statutory body. But I just want to say one more thing, Tony. We must be really careful with the - we must recognise several things about Muslim Australians. One is that Islam is a religion of peace. It absolutely is. I was attending some Eid Festival celebrations in my hometown of Albury on the weekend and talking to people who are concerned about the imagine that they have in the wider Australian community. But we must be also careful that we don't encourage young Muslims towards a more radical interpretation of their faith. We must be inclusive. We must reach out to particularly young Muslim Australians who feel aggrieved by some of the things that they see around them, that they feel reflect unfairly on them.

TONY JONES: How do you do that, by the way?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, you do it at the community level. You do it at the school level, you do it at the household level. As I said, governments can't impose what people think behind closed doors, but it is really important that every single Australian thinks about this and, as I said, reaches out. In country towns across my electorate, we have got new citizens coming from overseas, many of them on humanitarian visas, and it has been really heart-warming to see the way local communities reach out and engage with small groups. Now, sometimes there's misunderstandings and sometimes there is hate speech but, sort of, you see it in a small group, you realise how it actually can be done quite well and the ripple effect goes out and people feel at home as a result, and that's just so important.

TONY JONES: Greg Combet?

GREG COMBET: Oh. Oh, the - it's just unbelievably shocking. I mean this is where you move from rights into responsibilities. And, to the extent that there are Australians going over there fighting for the Islamic State, involved in beheadings and murder, dreadful treatment of people, persecution, I'm not too concerned about their rights, to be honest.

TONY JONES: So, would you happily strip away their citizenship, is that your saying? Because the question...

GREG COMBET: I don't know the right policy response and I'm not, obviously, close to the discussion that Government would be having, but there needs to be response. You know, I don't think it's acceptable. It is an appalling state of affairs and I think we have to deal with it.

TONY JONES: John Stackhouse, listening to this, I'm sure you've had the same debates in Canada?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, no, we don't have a lot of Canadians who go fight overseas on behalf of Muslim movements elsewhere, so this is actually something that's more Australian than Canadian and, as is obvious here, there's lots of different levels to the policy question. I think bringing people home, if they are going to come home, then they are going to be responsible for their actions elsewhere. But to keep our country safe, we do have to try to figure out who's who and what's what without being unrealistic and sentimental. I mean, I have to respectfully disagree. I've been teaching world religion for 25 years. Islam is not a religion of peace. They've tried to trademark that but it's just not true. Islam is a religion that copes with the real world and in Islam, including in its holy books, there are provisions for warfare and there are provisions for defensive warfare and there are also provisions for the extension of Islam, which is why the whole history of Islam has been steady territorial expansion. Of course it's a religion of peace, by which they mean the subjugation of other people under sharia and that's peace but it is an imperial sort of peace and I'm not judging it. I mean, we Christians have done the same thing and lots of other religions have done the same thing as well.

TONY JONES: I mean, I beg to differ you. You do appear to be judging it?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: No, I'm simply correcting the record. I mean, as a matter of fact, the Qur'an and the sharia are very clear that the jihad can be both the internal, the greater jihad of subjecting myself to the will of God, and the lesser jihad is to subject the world to God. I mean there is only two realms. There is Dar al-Islam. There is the submitted part of the world and then there is the rest of the world that's not yet submitted to God, the dar al-harb, the situation of war, the house of war. So it's a pretty clear world view and while many of my Muslim friends are liberal and multicultural and love Canada and have no interest in the violent prosecution of their faith and I think it's really important to understand, nonetheless, we just can't make sense of world history if we suggest that Islam doesn't have within it the legitimation of violence.

TONY JONES: Jen Robinson, I can see you wanted to get in there.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: An eyebrow was raised. I am, by no means, a religious scholar but I think a lot of my Muslim friends would take great exception to what you've just said and I think there are many interpretations and I would take a massive point with that. I think we also need to actually ask the question and be real here about the real numbers. Is this a huge Australian problem we're talking about? I think the numbers quoted were 150 people fighting overseas. Let's not over-exaggerate this, because I do feel in the media in recent weeks we've seen, here in Australia, a beating of the drum, an exaggeration of this threat of terror. Let's look at the numbers. Empirically, is that more than Canada? Is that more than the US? Is this a specifically Australian problem and does it justify the measures that are being put in place to react to it and I think that's a real question and one that hasn't been asked enough in the media and isn't being questioned in the political sphere, particularly in the context of the new anti-terror laws that are being introduced.

TONY JONES: I'll bring Simon Breheny back in here, because you did come in on the early part of that question or the first question.

SIMON BREHENY: Yeah, look, there are some very - as I said, there are some very serious problems here and we have radicalised Australians that are over in Iraq and Syria, and they're fighting a war and they're fighting a war on religious grounds and we certainly don't want for that to come back to Australia. I think that there's a very clear prima facie case, at the very least, for surveillance of anyone who tries to re-enter Australia and has come from that theatre of war.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I don't think there's any question about surveilling and investigating those who are known to be engaging in warfare. There is no question of that. The question is how much are we going to criminalise the Muslim community of this and persecute the Muslim community of this society because of a small group of individuals who are participating in war and what other measures are we justifying by reference to that fact?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, we are not doing that. We are certainly not doing that.

TONY JONES: You are changing the presumption of innocence though, if someone goes to one of those countries.

SUSSAN LEY: No, we're not changing the presumption of innocence.

TONY JONES: Or that's how it is being portrayed.

SUSSAN LEY: Well, that's how it's been portrayed. Let's wait until we see the actually technical changes, the consultation that will be had with all our agencies, the oversight that the inspector-general will give, the review of Parliament and so on. I mean there's been some fairly dramatic statements made about what we're going to do and many of these powers we have already, but it's important that - I mean, gosh, just 150? I would be concerned about one or two carrying on the activities that they are.

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Of course, but let's not over-exaggerate.

SUSSAN LEY: I mean suggesting that 150 is not a problem...

TONY JONES: But can I just make this point, historically, Sussan - sorry, can I just make this historical point because I actually reported on the Bosnian war back in the early 1990s and hundreds and hundreds of Australians went over to fight in that conflict. Again, a sectarian conflict. Again, a huge number of violent atrocities and crimes against humanity. We are still seeing the results that go through the War Crimes Tribunal there but no laws changed in Australia that I know of.

SUSSAN LEY: Well, the Islamic State is a terrorist army unlike anything the world has ever seen and when you consider the actions that it's taken in eastern Syria and northern Iraq so far and what it is doing, the genocide that it's now carrying out in an extraordinary way and the unstoppable - apparent unstoppable nature of its intentions, I think we can draw a distinction and maybe we should have had some more measures in place at that time at the Bosnian conflict. I don't know, Tony. But I am very confident that the measures that we will take careful steps to introduce now are the right ones. They absolutely have to be. As Greg said, it demands a response.

TONY JONES: Okay. We have a related question. It's a video. It comes from Charles Gutjahr in West Melbourne.

METADATA EFFECT

CHARLES GUTJAHR: In the United States last year, the director of the National Security Agency told an oversight committee that collecting metadata on hundreds of millions of Americans had helped to foil only one, perhaps two, terrorist plots. In Australia, we don't even know of one terrorist plot foiled via metadata. Should our security agencies have to prove that metadata is effective at combating terrorism before we provide any more to them.

TONY JONES: Simon Breheny?

SIMON BREHENY: There's a strange thing that happens when you raise national security security as a public policy issue and that is that the onus of proof suddenly disappears or at least it diminishes quite significantly and it's unlike any other public policy area and, unfortunately, I think, we're in a position where, when national security agencies, when law enforcement agencies that are looking at terrorism acts, ask government for power and they ask ministers for power, the automatic reaction, the default position, seems to be, well, yes, we'll give those powers to them. In many other cases in many other areas of public policy, that's not the way that things happen. Law enforcement agencies, or their equivalents, regulators, might come to a minister and say, we need powers in this particular area and they will be asked to justify them. I think in the case of metadata, we have got a significant evidentiary problem here and that is does metadata - does at least the collection of metadata on all Australians, is that something that's actually going to achieve the kind of results that law enforcement agencies want? And the experience is pretty clear. We've had mandatory data retention regimes in place in many countries in Europe and recently countries like Denmark and Germany have decided, well, although we've had these in place for a number of years, we've decided, on the evidence, that they haven't actually helped us. They haven't helped us pursue the people that we need to be able to pursue and these powers haven't actually yielded the kinds of results that we would like them to yield. So, I think in Australia we need to ask ourselves the question is a mandatory data retention regime something that we want and, if it is, then in what way are we going to implement it that is going to be different from how it's been implemented in countries like Denmark and Germany and how is that going to get us some different results?

TONY JONES: Now, Simon, we probably wouldn't know that much about this whole metadata retention if it weren't for Edward Snowden and his whistle-blowing in the United States. Something interesting happened when he first - when this first became public. Most Americans considered him to be a traitor. Over a period of time, public opinion changed on Edward Snowden. Did it change as far as you were concerned?

SIMON BREHENY: Well, I think Americans understood the importance of the system that was in place and how extensive this regime was. There is a big difference between surveilling particular people who are suspected of wrong doing and surveilling the entire population and I think that the way that we want to move is to give law enforcement agencies the kind of powers that are going to allow them to go after people who are suspects, criminal suspects but allowing for the kind of surveillance that we've seen in the United States is certainly not the direction that I'd like Australia to move in.

TONY JONES: So very briefly, do you regard Snowden as a villain or a hero?

SIMON BREHENY: Well, I think that dichotomy is not all that helpful but I certainly thing that it was important that he did what he did so that Americans were able to understand the extent of surveillance over them.

TONY JONES: Jen Robinson?

Well, of course, given WikiLeaks involvement in the Snowden case and the massive public interest in the disclosure that Snowden released, we wouldn't know the extent of these surveillance programs, not just in the US but also here in Australia and the participation of the Australian Government in Five Eyes. We know, because of Edward Snowden, that metadata - this has sparked an entire review of the way in which NSA collects data. We know, as a result of Whitehouse reviews and the Privacy Oversights Board in the United States that metadata has not made them more safe and, in fact, existing court orders would have been sufficient to achieve the outcomes that they were seeking. So because of this, because of Snowden, we know this and the question about whether we should have our authorities be proved that this foils terrorist attacks, we now know that it doesn't and the question is, when you are going to invade people's privacy in the way that metadata does, and I don't think that the Australian public and the debate around this has adequately highlighted the extent to which metadata does invade your privacy...

TONY JONES: Well, how does it, because there's been a tremendous debate around, in this country and no one seems to be able to explain whether it does or whether it doesn't, whether it tracks your internet surfing or whether it does not has been a huge matter for debate and no one has really given a concrete answer? Do you know?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, of course, metadata is not defined and it's defined often by reference to what is not content, but as the head of the NSA has said, if you've got metadata, we actually don't need content, because we can tell so much about you because of the metadata that we can collect. It involves all telecommunications information that is exchanged from the technology that you've given. Now, that can - Stanford University have shown that that can show a huge amount of information about us: our sexual preferences, our health, our health status, who we interact with, who our friends are, our political views. So, do you want the Government to know that you had an appointment with your gynaecologist, you then had a call from the gynaecologist guy, you then rang up and made an appointment with the abortion clinic? Do you want the Government to know that? That is what they can tell from metadata. So if the government is going to be collecting metadata, that is a breach of our privacy. They have to justify that. They have to show that it is necessary and proportionate to the invasion of our privacy. Metadata, as we've just heard, doesn't achieve the ends that they seek. There are other ways and they have existing powers to do this. It's not as if they can't investigate criminal suspects.

TONY JONES: Sussan Ley?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, the NSA's description of what metadata is may not match with what our final determination is because what's happening now..

TONY JONES: No-one seems to be able to really describe it in your Government either.

SUSSAN LEY: Well, what's happening now - what's happening now is that - is that George Brandis, Malcolm Turnbull and, most importantly the telcos, because they need to be brought into this, are discussing how these arrangements might take place and what they might look like. But, I mean, a simple analogy and I don't want to launch into tech talk, because that wouldn't be good, but a simple analogy and I was thinking I picked up my phone. Here is my call log. It says who I've rung, what time I rang them and how long the conversation was for. I don't mind people knowing that. I might be a bit funny about them knowing the details of what was exchanged in the conversation, without due reason for wanting to know that, i.e. a search warrant, further investigation, et cetera, but the fact that they could have a look at those lists of - that call log wouldn't worry me. And, you know, we've made it clear...

TONY JONES: Tony Abbott, by the way, said it's what's printed on the front of the envelope. I looked at the envelope that my phone bill came in, it's just my address.

SUSSAN LEY: Well, I think that analogy actually translates to what I just said about the mobile phone call log. It's not the content. So nobody is spying on your conversations, nobody is eavesdropping with what you've said. I mean, as if the Government could care less about all these tiny details of our lives. They really couldn't and they don't have the time. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear. I always think it's a bit like cyclone-proofing a house. In North Queensland, it costs 30,000 to cyclone-proof your house. If that didn't happen and a cyclone came and your house blew over, you'd turn around and blame the government and say, well, why wasn't something done? Why weren't we being properly looked after? Why didn't we know that we had to do these things? By taking the steps that we take, which is involving the security agencies with the proper oversight and the interaction of Parliament and all of the things that we've said we'll do in a staged way and we will do this properly.

TONY JONES: Okay. I don't know if you've noticed the mushrooming of hands in the audience. That young gentleman, there's a microphone just over you. You can state with you. There's one down the front here. We'll come to that. Go ahead.

METADATA EFFECT - from the floor

CHRIS PURCELL: You say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. What if laws change down the road and you have done something wrong in the past before the laws changed, can you then be prosecuted for that?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, I mean, that sounds to me like something relating to criminal evidence, but, please, I know you don't have much faith in parliament but you must have faith in parliament. If parliament oversights...

CHRIS PURCELL: That's not it. That's not what I'm saying.

SUSSAN LEY: If parliament oversights these things, that's a good thing. I mean the debate is always do we let the security agencies run riot and do exactly what they want with free range? No, we don't. We have parliamentary oversight through various committees and obviously the executive of government. So parliament represents the people and represents you.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm not trying to cut you off but there's a few people with their hands up. We'll go to that young gentleman there with the tie on and just while we're waiting for that microphone to reach you, Greg Combet, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear, that's the message.

GREG COMBET: Well, actually while we were speaking, one of the positions I had in Government interfaced with the national security agencies and I would just suggest that it's a good idea for the case to be made, I think would be the short answer, and I'm not endeavouring to impugn any of our security agencies' motives but this is an important public policy debate and a matter of public interest that should be debated in order to justify the retention of data like this and I was also just thinking how interesting it would have been to see, excuse me, the metadata of some of the members of the Rudd Gillard Governments who were backgrounding journalists. We would have loved to have known which journalists they were talking to.

TONY JONES: So you're saying for political reasons you wouldn't mind that invasion of privacy?

GREG COMBET: I'd suspect, well, it tells you the story, doesn't it, because I'd suspect there'd be a few journalists uncomfortable too.

TONY JONES: Well, we might have found the phone call from Julia Gillard to you offering you the prime ministership.

GREG COMBET: That was a face to face. We knew not to use the phone.

TONY JONES: We'll go to that questioner in the audience right there. Go ahead.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't think you can argue that national security should be a just an ability for the Government to say, we can do whatever we want. One of the most recent examples of using national security as an excuse is the super injunction in the Victorian Supreme Court about the Securency bribery scandal, where national security was used as a cover up to not embarrass Australian organisations and international leaders in regards to the bribery scandal over the bank notes. So you can't just go around saying, oh, national security that, national security that.

TONY JONES: Okay, we'll just take that as a comment and just behind you there's another gentleman with his hand up, we'll quickly go to that one. Go ahead?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We've heard oversight and accountability mentioned over and over again and we're talking about ASIO and agencies like that, picking them in particular, an agency which is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. It's exempt from the Privacy Act. They can go to any corporation and go around the Privacy Act. They report to the Director of ASIO, who reports to the IGIS, Inspector-General Intelligence something or other, and then report to George Brandis, who we all saw on Sky News this week blabbering away. He doesn't understand what is going on. If there is no accountability, how can you keep saying that?

TONY JONES: Okay, well, a quick response.

SUSSAN LEY: Just to say that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an independent statutory body.

TONY JONES: Okay, well, let's move on. We've got another question. This one, I think, is directed to John Stackhouse. It's a video from Peter Grice in Brisbane.

IRAQ

PETER GRICE: Professor Stackhouse, as you know, there is a lot of strife in the world at the moment in various place, including what one commentator called "Evil, the likes of which we've not seen in generations." Such evil is even being visited on innocent children and many Australians are beginning to feel a sense of despair. It's tempting to ask why God hasn't shown up on the scene to fix a very broken situation. But supposing he did, what is your sense of a just punishment for those who bomb, torture, rape and slay innocent human beings and, by the same token, what remains of a positive vision for peace?

TONY JONES: John Stackhouse?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, I would like to answer one of the other questions. They actually seem much easier now, compared to that global one.

TONY JONES: You can weave that in but try the one about what God would do?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, I think it's an excellent question because I think we do have to presume, if we're Christians and people of similar outlooks, that God is mourning over the world, that God is not happy about these things and that God is, in fact, as the ancient scriptures say, you know, keeping a log of these things. That nobody does anything in a secret place. God has maximum surveillance, in fact. He does know what everybody is doing all the time.

TONY JONES: He knows your metadata?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: He knows the metadata and the data. He has got it all.

TONY JONES: He does do much with it though?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, that's, I think, the crucial question is that if God wants me to continue to trust him as an all-good and all-powerful God when he manifestly seems not to be one or the other or both, then he'd better give me a jolly good reason to trust him anyway and God hasn't given me any account, any daily briefing about why he is allowing the atrocities here and why he is allowing them there and they go back since the dawn of time.

TONY JONES: Well, is that where faith comes in? Because, as we know, plenty of Holocaust survivors actually lost their faith once they saw the real dark side of human nature and realised that God was never going to intervene?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, indeed, I think that post-Holocaust theology among my Jewish friends is a very daunting and very dark place because, for them, there is no ground on which to continue to believe in God that is strong enough to outweigh the grounds to not believe in God and that, to me, is the real question. It's not necessarily whether God explains to me what he is going to do. I'm not sure I have the mental or the moral capacity to be able to judge whether God is doing a good job in the world. I think he is not doing a very good job often, but I'm not sure I'm capable to judge that. But if he wants my allegiance, he jolly well better give me a very good reason to trust him anyway and for the Christian, that answer is Jesus. That answer is looking at this figure, whom Christians believe is the very face of God. So if God is like that, then I can trust this hidden god who is seems to be making a mess of the world. And if he not like that, then I am really in a much difficult situation. So, Tony, for me, as a Christian who looks at the world like anybody else does, if I don't have Jesus, I frankly am going to be an atheist because, like my Jewish friends post-Holocaust, God actually doesn't seem to be doing a very good job running things.

TONY JONES: We're running out of time so I'm going to quickly move to another question, which is again to an individual panellist. This one is from Sandra Eckersley.

ASSANGE - GO TO SWEDEN & 'MAN UP'

SANDRA ECKERSLEY: Hi. My question is for Jen Robinson. Julian Assange has now lost six court hearings trying to get the Swedish case against him thrown out. He claims to be persecuted by the United States but, apart from some angry rhetoric, four years on, they have not charged him or WikiLeaks with a single crime. Sweden has not extradited anyone to the United States for espionage or military-related crimes in over 50 years. They are a haven. When do you think Julian Assange will man up, return to Sweden, face his accusers, clear his name and then get on with the rest of his life?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Thank you for the question. Julian is in the Ecuadorian embassy because of an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States. We know from court documents released in April this year that that grand jury investigation is ongoing. We know from material released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that that is an investigation which is of - unprecedented in size and scale. So to say that there is no charge on the public record yet doesn't mean that one does not exist because that is the nature of the grand jury process. That, of course, is the concern and is the reason that Ecuador granted him asylum. It is the reason that he is inside the embassy. He has always wanted to clear his name. We have offered his testimony since October 2010 to the prosecutor. She has refused that in circumstances which the Swedish Supreme Court judge has said that he can't provide an answer for why she hasn't gone to London to interview him. There are other means by which they could have got his testimony. He has always wanted to clear his name. His concern is and always onward extradition to the United States from Sweden. It is true that Sweden hasn't extradited anyone on espionage charges but we suspect that there will be a number of other charges that will be levelled against him that do not involve espionage crimes, including potential Misuse of Computer Act. We don't exactly know yet but they are crimes that would be extraditable offences. So it is possible if he were returned to Sweden and the matter was dealt with there, the US could seek his extradition from Sweden and that was a risk that he wasn't willing to take. We need only look to the treatment of Chelsea Manning to see what would happen to him if he was returned to the United States and this is a legitimate claim for asylum. The Swedish procedure has been roundly criticised. There are more than - about 60 organisations have made a submission to Sweden's Universal Periodic Review because of the breaches of procedure in his case. There is a new directive that requires the Swedish Government to provide information to Julian in relation to the case. We know there is exculpatory evidence, which they haven't disclosed and we are seeking to have an appeal now to have that arrest warrant overturned on the grounds that this is disproportionate. He has now spent more than four years in custody, more than he would have spent had he been found guilty on these charges, which we do not think he would be, and so that begs the question, this is not about Sweden. It's about the United States.

TONY JONES: Would you, just very briefly, would you trust a guarantee from the Swedish Government that they would not extradite him under any circumstances?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: That would be a matter for Julian but we have been seeking these assurances and, in fact, Ecuador has been seeking these assurances. The Ecuadorian Government has continued to seek the assurances that we were asking of the Australian Government, which they refuse to seek on behalf of an Australian citizen. They have asked for the assurances that the UK could exercise its power to require that Julian not be extradited to the United States once he is returned to Sweden. They refused to give it. They have also sought assurances from the Swedish Government and from the US Government. None of them have been willing to give such an assurance. It would be a simple matter for the United States to close that grand jury. If this is, as they say, they are not going to prosecute him, then close the grand jury. Close it.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry, we have got hands up in the audience but I am told that we are, in fact, out of time or is that true? No, apparently we have got time for one more question. Very brief time for one last question from Nesha O'Neill. Go ahead.

CHILD CARE: COSTS

NESHA O'NEILL: Minister Ley, there is currently more than a million children in early childhood education across Australia and in Sydney parents often have to pay up to $150 a day for care. The Productivity Commission is undertaking a review of early childhood education and care but my question is can the inquiry really lead to improved affordability for families when they've been told to consider their recommendations within the current funding bucket? Shouldn't the 5.5 billion from paid parental leave scheme be re-directed to early childhood to help Australian families access high quality, affordable early childhood education?

TONY JONES: Sussan Ley.

SUSSAN LEY: Thank you, Nesha.

TONY JONES: Which is what the Productivity Commission suggested, I think?

SUSSAN LEY: Yes, the Productivity Commission can't do these things but what we can do is bring about new policy that will bring down the cost of childcare for the families of which you speak, which is the number one concern of mine. It's too expensive, it's not available and it belongs to the working week of last century, not the 24/7 economy in which we now live. Now, we have...

TONY JONES: I want to let you answer that question, but can I quickly jump in there? Can you actually - do you have a target for what to bring it down to because $150 a day is out of the reach of many working families?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, we wouldn't dictate the price but we know why it's going up and there are many reasons. But in terms of the total investment, we have got $31.5 billion in investment in childcare over the next four years. We've said to the Productivity Commission, inside that envelope, can you bring down some recommendations? There is a substantial amount of money and we can make a substantial difference. On the matter of the paid parental leave, it is a completely different policy. It is about having babies and it's about a workplace entitlement. And let's remember because everyone thinks about paid parental leave as the dad going out to work and the mum sort of fitting a bit of part-time work around having children. There are many households where the mother is the breadwinner and if she steps away to have a child, her working wage is critical to managing that family's finances for the future. That's the workplace entitlement. The other part is the, if you like, the fertility policy side and I meet lots of women who say, I couldn't afforded to have the second or the third child but really would have liked to and that's not good. That's not good for the country. Childcare, on the other hand, is about how you go back to work and manage your work around - your childcare around your work not, as it so often seems to happen, your work has to fit around your childcare. But there is exciting times ahead. There is new policy coming in early 2015 and I know that lots of people across Australia have had their say and we - I mean, it's going to make a difference for families. It really is.

TONY JONES: Very briefly, as we said at the beginning, the Productivity Commission said the money from paid parental leave scheme should go into childcare. If that is blocked in the Senate, which seems quite likely, then will that happen? Is that a logical use of the money that you no longer have to spend on that policy?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, it's - look, again, they're two separate policies and I'm very optimistic that our paid parental leave...

TONY JONES: But they are linked obviously, aren't they?

SUSSAN LEY: Well, no, they're not actually. They're not linked at all. I mean one...

TONY JONES: No, just conceptually.

SUSSAN LEY: One is a levy on 3,000 companies and one is paid for in existing allocations, 31.5 billion over the next four years. So they're not linked and they're about two separate areas of, if you like, related family policy but I'm very confident that our new senate, our new senators when they get across the detail of the paid parental leave and realise the benefits for women and the fact that we really must recognise women's contribution, both in the home but also in the economy - every time I see a woman who has gone back to work doing less than she was trained or qualified for because she can't get childcare, I realise that the talent, the imagination and the ingenuity of half of the Australian population is, in many cases, missing in action and we need to bring that back and both these policies will do that.

TONY JONES: Greg Combet?

GREG COMBET: Well, the paid parental leave scheme is a joke, let's face it. I mean, for heaven's sake, it's so inequitable and unfair and it was a thought bubble in Tony Abbott's book remember? My book is much better reading, if I could say so, but it should not go ahead, so I certainly hope that the Senate blocks it and kills it because it's dreadfully unfair. The money should either be saved or it should be put towards a more progressive thing that is needed in the community, like affordable childcare. Quality, affordable childcare, it's a far more important priority.

SUSSAN LEY: Greg, Labor's paid parental leave is paid at the minimum wage for 18 weeks that is disrespectful of women, I'm sorry.

GREG COMBET: Oh, good heavens. Were you a member of the Howard Government by any chance? The Howard Government did absolutely nothing about paid parental leave. Labor introduced a scheme, it's in place, 18 weeks at the minimum wage and I'm proud of it.

TONY JONES: Unfortunately, on that note of pride, we'll have to leave it tonight because that's all we have time for. Please thank our panel, Simon Breheny, Jennifer Robinson, John Stackhouse, Sussan Ley and Greg Combet. Thank you very much. Now, next week on Q&A: the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss; Labor Senate Leader Penny Wong; leader of the Palmer United Party, Clive Palmer; chair of Australian Super, Heather Ridout; and social justice advocate and CEO of St Vincent de Paul, Dr John Falzon. Until next week's Q&A, goodnight.