SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: The terrorist threat posed by Australians training and fighting in foreign conflicts is the justification for a suite of new counter-terrorism measures proposed by the Government today.

The laws would make it easier for the Federal Police to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists and force Australians to justify their travel to conflict areas.

The Government is also proposing an Australian version of controversial metadata laws that force telecommunications companies to retain our calling data for two years.

The Prime Minister also announced he's abandoning his commitment to change the Racial Discrimination Act. Tony Abbott says he's made a leadership call to leave the laws in place, despite an election promise to dump them.

I spoke to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop earlier.

Julie Bishop, first to the baby Gammy story if I could. It's been revealed today that the father of the couple is a convicted paedophile. Will you act to protect the child that he brought home from Thailand?

JULIE BISHOP, FOREIGN MINISTER: This is clearly a tragic case and it raises a whole range of issues that we've not confronted before.

It came about as a result of a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Thailand. That, in itself, has raised issues of concern to the Department of Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's Department. So we are looking at that issue from that perspective.

The reports that were raised today are, of course, of deep concern and the appropriate authorities should take action in relation to it. But I think that the very tragic nature of this case raises a whole raft of issues that must be dealt with at a State and Federal level.

We were also coordinating our response with the Thai authorities and working with Thailand to see if we can resolve this to the satisfaction of all parties.

SARAH FERGUSON: Just in the first instance on the child who has come back: have you had any conversations with the WA Premier, for example, on this?

JULIE BISHOP: No, I haven't, but I know that our department is working closely with the State Government, the State authorities as well as the Thai authorities.

SARAH FERGUSON: Let's just go to the press conference this afternoon. The Prime Minister has dumped the push to repeal the race Discrimination Act today. Is that an election promise that's better broken?

JULIE BISHOP: The circumstances have changed. As the Prime Minister said, if we were drafting the Racial Discrimination Act from the outset we wouldn't have had the terminology used in 18C.

But what we're focussing on now is getting the entire Australian community behind what is a real and growing threat: and that's terrorists fighting overseas, extremism in this country. And we need a united approach. We don't want distractions and we know that the debate about 18C was raising concerns in the community.

So in the context of the other measures that we announced today, we thought it appropriate to talk about how we can work together as a community and not look at issues that had the potential to divide.

SARAH FERGUSON: So, for you, which is more important: the fact that 18C was a distraction or it was alienating the Muslim community?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, it's a combination of matters. We have announced new measures today in the counter-terrorism sphere. That is our priority.

SARAH FERGUSON: Why did members of the Cabinet read about a decision on new data retention laws in the tabloid press today before it was discussed in Cabinet?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, these are matters that have been discussed for quite some time. In fact, they've been the subject of Parliamentary committee reports and the National Security Committee has been dealing with this issue and discussing this issue for some time. I'm not in a position to...

SARAH FERGUSON: But I would be right to say that members of the Cabinet were not aware that that decision had been made, nor released to the press, before they saw it in print?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, I'm not in a position to comment because I'm a member of National Security Committee, so I was well aware of the debate.

SARAH FERGUSON: And what about the rest of your colleagues? Were they so aware?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, you'd have to ask my colleagues. Obviously a number of them were aware because they are members of the National Security Committee.

But also, we've been discussing this issue for quite some time because this terrorism threat is evolving and growing and it is a real threat that needs to be addressed as soon as possible and that's what the debate over the last couple of months has been all about.

SARAH FERGUSON: Well, let me ask you this: what is the purpose of forcing telcos to retain our metadata?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, telcos retain data now. What we need to ensure is that our intelligence agencies can have access to relevant material. This is not about breaching privacy or listening in to people's private conversations. This is ensuring that our intelligence agencies have the capability to detect terrorists at work.

The way to detect a terrorist cell is to work out their networks and so our intelligence and security agencies need the capacity to do that. We will work with the telcos to ensure that there is a balance and that we only gather what we need to gather for the purposes of counter-terrorism.

SARAH FERGUSON: It's not just telcos, of course: it also applies to other, new ways of making telephone calls like Viber and Skype and Tango. What sort of information will you be looking for and from whom, when it comes to those companies and their services?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, these are the details that will be provided in the legislation as it goes forward. Our Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, will be working closely with our Attorney-General, George Brandis, to ensure that we only collect what our intelligence agencies need access to.

SARAH FERGUSON: The reason I ask you what it's for is because a White House panel review of the NSA telephone metadata collection found that it hadn't prevented a single terrorist attack and had made "only a modest contribution to the nation's security." So why do you think you need it?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, we're doing the changes to our laws as appropriate to the Australian environment and we are taking advice from our intelligence agencies and our security agencies. So this is to combat the threat as we see it in the Australian context. But, of course, there are lessons to be learnt from other countries...

SARAH FERGUSON: But there can't be any real difference between the threat from the Australian - I beg your pardon, but there can't be a significant technological difference between the United States and Australia, so the question is: what's going to be your benchmark to justify the potential intrusion into the lives of ordinary people?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, clearly we are able to learn lessons from other intelligence agencies. We can learn lessons from other countries who have gone down this path. But what we are seeking to do is equip our intelligence agencies with the capability, backed by legislative measures, to enable them to do their job which is to counter the terrorist activity that is going on in this country at present. It is a real risk. It is an evolving risk and as the national Government we must take steps to ensure that we can counter it.

SARAH FERGUSON: You're proposing to put the onus of proof on Australians travelling to conflict zones or areas of terrorist activity. You're a lawyer. Are you comfortable with reversing the presumption of innocence for an Australian?

JULIE BISHOP: What we're doing is designating areas where Australians must indicate why they would go to that area. We already have travel advisories from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at various levels: from "think about travelling to those areas" to "do not travel to those areas."

So if, for example, a person was going to Mosul in northern Iraq: if they're going there for humanitarian reasons, that's fine. If they cannot tell you why they are going to Mosul, which is now held by a proscribed terrorist organisation in IS, or ISIS, then I think it's appropriate that the Australian Government's intelligence agencies should know why a person would be going to Mosul.

SARAH FERGUSON: Just moving onto Gaza, if I could: today you described Israel's shelling of United Nations schools as indefensible. Israel hasn't denied the shelling of those buildings and the killing of the civilians inside them. Has Israel broken international law?

JULIE BISHOP: I'm not in a position to say that. I have challenged Israel to justify what it's done. I've called for a full investigation into it.

I am pleased that there's a ceasefire at present between Hamas and Israel. In the past I have been deeply disappointed that ceasefires have been breached by Hamas and Israel should not have to tolerate the incessant firing of rockets into Israeli territory.

But, of course, its response must seek to avoid civilian casualties and I'm deeply concerned about UN schools being targeted in this way. So we've called for an investigation into it. I just hope that this current ceasefire for humanitarian purposes can be turned into a permanent ceasefire.

SARAH FERGUSON: Ban Ki-moon called those attacks on the UN shelters a criminal act and a moral outrage. Do you endorse that?

JULIE BISHOP: Well, I've used my words: I've said it was indefensible. I was shocked by it. We've called for a full investigation and I think that's the appropriate response.

SARAH FERGUSON: Julie Bishop, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

JULIE BISHOP: My pleasure.