Posted March 28, 2017 01:54:35

Last week's terror attack in London, Islam and the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act were the hot topics for this week's Q&A panel.

Panellists ranged from representatives from the Government and Opposition in Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie and Labor MP Amanda Rishworth, to Hunters and Collectors frontman Mark Seymour and businessman turned refugee advocate Peter Holmes a Court.

Former NSW opposition leader Kerry Chikarovski and security and terror expert Lydia Khalil completed the panel.

The lone wolf attack at Westminster that saw four killed and dozens injured last Wednesday and comments supposedly made in the aftermath by London mayor Sadiq Khan that terror was part and parcel of big city living was the first topic broached on the show.

Do residents of major cities need to accept terrorism as part of life?

Ms Khalil said that she did not agree with that premise that we need to accept terrorism, just as domestic violence or human trafficking is not accepted.

"I'm not being naive, I know there is violence and risk in everything out there, but just to say we should accept it and carry on, I don't think that's the right approach to it.

"That being said, I think our response to it is really the key thing. We can have more of an impact than the actual terrorist attack itself. So if we have a disproportionate response to what's going on, if we have overzealous policies, overzealous security, then it's going to do far more harm it will do far more harm than the actual violent attack.

"If we a more measured response and we keep that social cohesion, we'll go a long way I think to stopping terrorism."

Mr Holmes a Court picked up on the questioner's statement about Mr Khan, saying the mayor's comments were actually made last year as a warning to residents in large cities.

"He didn't say that, right? First thing is to get over the messages that get out so quickly. He said that in New York, September 20 last year when the bomb went off on 23rd Street, what he was saying is we have to be prepared for terror all the time.

"We have to be on guard all the time. And I still don't even think that's cool to say. I don't think we should normalise terror and accept it should be part of our lives and we should accept a guy walking down the street with a giant machine gun on our side or pass through security, buy an ice cream.

"To me, we don't take this thing very seriously. We have not demanded the leader of every country in the world go and have a summit and do something about it, as we did in the Second World War. We haven't really said we want to stop this terror thing."

Are we making it okay to humiliate someone through changing our racial discrimination act?

Proposed amendments to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act also proved a potent issue, with Victorian Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie and South Australian Labor MP Amanda Rishworth both struggling with answers after questions from a Muslim and Jewish audience members.

Ms Rishworth resisted making "policy on the run" comments when asked by host Tony Jones whether Labor would reinstate any words that were removed from 18C by the Government, the pair having a back-and-forth.

Ms Rishworth: "We are absolutely fighting for this protection and we think we can win this."

Jones: "Would you put them back?"

AR: "Absolutely, we will look at..."

TJ: "That's a commitment from the Labor Party?"

AR: "No, no. I'm not going to make policy on the run here. What I'm saying is I believe we can win this fight."

TJ: "Is it policy or a matter of principle?"

AR: "Well it's a matter of principle but I think we can win this fight."

TJ: "What if you don't?"

AR: "If we don't, we'll cross that bridge whether we come to it. We said there can be process change but in terms of 18C, we believe we can win."

Section 18C? Never heard of it? Means nothing to you? You're not alone, writes Stan Grant.

Mark Seymour kept it short and sweet when it came to his thoughts on 18C.

"Look, we're drowning in a river of free speech. There's so much free speech. It's not stopping Pauline [Hanson]."

Jones jumped on Senator McKenzie's claim that the current laws prevent Australians from talking about discrimination.

"The ordinary punter out there, when they think about definitions of insult, offend, humiliate that we shouldn't be, we have a Racial Discrimination Act that prevents that, that then impedes on their decisions to have the types of conversations we're having tonight in a free and open manner," Senator McKenzie said.

"Can I just make the point we are having this conversation now and the law hasn't changed, so in fact we are still able to have that conversation," Jones stated.

"Tony my point is, we are now using 'harass', and making those hateful crimes, the racial vilification, et cetera that can occur," Senator McKenzie replied.

"That's where the focus of the law is rather than the law as it stands captures — like the QUT students — captures these types of cases that shouldn't be coming before the [Human Rights] Commission at all."

Ms Chikarovski, who led the NSW Liberal Party between 1999 and 2003, said she believed the proposed 18C changes would not get through the Senate and said the changes were more of an interest to a certain part of the Liberal party than the wider community.

"They are obviously a matter of concern to certain ethnic groups … and I acknowledge that.

"But for the vast majority of Australians out there, and I use the example; I walk the streets and I'm no longer a politician and people assume I'm a spokesperson for the Liberal Party and I get stopped in the street all the time — 'What are you doing about climate change and same-sex marriage?'.

I've never had a single person say to me, "What are you doing about 18C?".

Topics: terrorism, race-relations, television, australia