Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
National Press Club -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is captioned live.

Today at the National Press Club,

the Chief Executive Officer of

Vision Australia, Tim Costello. In the Chief Executive Officer of World

a speech titled 'Terrorist Threat

Political Leadership', Mr Costello a speech titled 'Terrorist Threat to

will discuss his belief that

terrorism's aim is to inflict

on the public psyche, rather than terrorism's aim is to inflict damage

Press Club in Canberra, individuals. From the National on the public psyche, rather than on

Press Club in Canberra, World individuals. From the National

CEO, Tim Costello. Press Club in Canberra, World Vision

(Bell gongs) Ladies and gentlemen,

welcome to the National Press Club

and today's address. We are very

pleased to have Tim Costello here

today. It is also very timely. I

mean, to - I asked him actually

the title of his mean, to - I asked him actually what the title of his address meant and mean, to - I asked him actually what

he was explaining it to me as he

will to you shortly, and it

illustrates many of the things

our current situation with regard illustrates many of the things about

public attitudes and public policy our current situation with regard to

responses to terrorism and all

that's involved there. The Tim

Costello's interests in this regard

are based on a much wide

are based on a much wider attitude towards public

towards public policy which is are based on a much wider attitude

included in his career being a

Baptist minister, mayor of St Kilda,

a spokesman for the various expert

groups dealing with issues such as

homelessness, problem gambling,

substance abuse, and now as chief

executive of World Vision, a

position he took on last year, he

dealing on a much broader stage, position he took on last year, he is

including this one, including this one, so please dealing on a much broader stage,

welcome Tim Costello. APPLAUSE

I want to thank President Ken

Randall for the invitation to be

here, and also the National

Australia Bank and I share an

external stakeholders committee

them, so I have an association with external stakeholders committee with

them, and also to acknowledge the

to a very robust debate across the off. I was quite amazed to listen had a few hours in the afternoon there on World Vision business and of the House of Commons. I was the -- just in the public gallery weeks ago that I was jutting suft in weeks ago that I was jutting suft this Territory. It was about three traditional owners, the people of them, and also to acknowledge the

whole political spectrum, a debate

that focused on the centuries it

took to build up fundamental human

rights and therefore the reluctance,

deep reluctance to surrender those

rights quickly, easily without

debate. I listened to people,

representatives of the people who

only months ago in July had seen

some of their fellow Londoners

killed, 52 of them, in a terrorist

attack, still take time and still killed, 52 of them, in a terrorist

argue fundamental principles,

principles around the rights of

journlis - should they go on a

and visit a terrorist camp, the journlis - should they go on a story

rights of people who might be

associating with terrorists either

unwittingly or in the course of

their work, and why those people

So should be victims or scapegoated.

So I couldn't help but think of the should be victims or scapegoated.

question of the terrorist threat to

political leadership here, and the

difference of perhaps the debate,

the speed, even the sha rilness of

the debate here. Terrorism, as the

name suggests, is designed to

inflict a greater damage on the

psyche of society than on human

bodies. While its physical impact

is severe, terrorism's

is severe, terrorism's aim is to bodies. While its physical impact

make not only those injured in an

attack victims, but to make society

itself a victim. From citizens to

the police, to the judiciary, to

political leadership. The

challenges for political leaders in

a time of terrorist threat are many

and great. I want to address three

this afternoon. The first

is the inevitable temptation to this afternoon. The first challenge is the inevitable temptation to use this afternoon. The first challenge

the climate of fear terrorism

provokes for one's own political

advantage. Fear is a powerful

motivator, but it's also precisely

the response terrorists would want,

and I would like to contrast that

with a politics of hope.

with a politics of hope, a hope

we can make the world a safer, more with a politics of hope, a hope that

secure and fair environment.

secure and fair environment. Hope we can make the world a safer, more

that is, I believe, the most

sustainable way to defeat terrorism.

The second challenge is defined

that delicate balance between

freedom and security. Dr Mary

Robinson, former UN High

Commissioner for human rights and

former President of Ireland, is one

who has acknowledged the need for

those with power, governments in particular, to

particular, to protect their those with power, governments in

citizens. But she also highlights

the crucial need for citizens to

participate and be involved in

decisions affecting them, and

ultimately in their own protection.

If we are to foresake

rights and freedoms for greater If we are to foresake long-cherished

security, then governments must

the compelling case for such a move. security, then governments must make

And the public as fully as And the public as fully as the compelling case for such a move.

must participate in the process. And the public as fully as possible

The third and final challenge that

will spend more time on is The third and final challenge that I

discussing the need to craft

policies which don't just react to

the terrorist threat, but

proactively deal with the climate

and the causes of terrorism. I

believe that is the greatest

challenge for political leaders

develop today, to take a long view, to

develop a holistic response to today, to take a long view, to

terrorism, that not only prevents

its expression, but also attacks

causes, that not only legislatively its expression, but also attacks its

restricts the spread of its

ideology, but also addresses the

climate in which such ideas are

or find save haven. Well, we do climate in which such ideas are born

9/11. In the wake live in an age of anxiety since

9/11. In the wake of September 11, live in an age of anxiety since

Madrid and Bali bombings, there is

far greater level of fear and Madrid and Bali bombings, there is a

anxiety in our community. It is a

very natural human response. Ros

Gittens, writing in 'The Age' in

the 'Sydney Morning Herald' Gittens, writing in 'The Age' in and

recently, noted that terrorism is

the most important problem facing

the nation, well ahead of

economic environmental problems and various

economic issues. Gittens however environmental problems and various

wrote that we would probably save

more lives into fixing black spots

on the highways. He noted that the

odds of an American dying in a

terrorist attack is about one in 88,

terrorist attack is about one in 88,000, while the odds of falling

off a ladder are one in 10,000.

Well, that is the nature of this a-Sim metric threat

Well, that is the nature of this a-Sim metric threat of terrorism.

Its violence is designed to prompt

Its violence is designed to prompt a state of fear, disproportionate to

its actual threat. Sn.

its actual threat. (Assymetric)

Thomas hobs gave is a certainly

level of respectability. Corey

Robyn, author of 'fear: A level of respectability. Corey Robyn, author of 'fear: A political

history' commented on the ABC last

year that Hobbs confronted a world

that is actually quite similar to

the world that many of us know

today. It is a world where people

had faurnt disagreements about

had faurnt disagreements about right and wrong, good and evil, justice

and injustice. Hobbs was writing

and injustice. Hobbs was writing at the time of the English civil war

and nobody could come to any

agreement about the meaning of and nobody could come to any agreement about the meaning of

agreement about the meaning of these terms. So in the face of such

disagreement, Hobbs reached the

conclusion that whatever your view

is about the good, the just, the

bad, you can't pursue your vision

bad, you can't pursue your vision of the good life if you're dead. So,

Hobbs concluded that fear really

Hobbs concluded that fear really has to be the central unifying category

to bring together a to be the central unifying category to bring together a antecedent

political civilisation. Richard

nicks done once famously said,

"People react to fear, not love.

They don't teach that in Sunday

School, but it's true." Nixon

School, but it's true." Nixon wasn't in some Sunday schools I was in

in some Sunday schools I was in with talk of the wrath of God. LAUGHTER

But while fear is a talk of the wrath of God. LAUGHTER But while fear is a natural human

response to a perceived threat and

functions best in the moment of the

fight or flight response, it is

fight or flight response, it is also a profoundly disempowering emotion

that clouds our thinking, breeds

distrust and connection and creates a ma

a malevolent anxiety if left

unchecked. So responding

successfully to any complex threat unchecked. So responding successfully to any complex threat

requires a healthy dose of hope and

reason. And that's the challenge

for political leaders.

for political leaders - to also

appeal to hope and reason, to

marshal vast reservoirs of these

virtues in times of crisis. So,

virtues in times of crisis. So, how do we negotiate freedom and

security? Michael

do we negotiate freedom and security? Michael Hegna th, eth,

professor of human rights at

professor of human rights at Harvard gave a speech earlier this year in

which he articulated a view of the

lesser ee Val. An examination of

the legislative problems of

responding to terrorism. He put

responding to terrorism. He put the moral hazard like this: You can do

harm to yourself and then you can

harm to yourself and then you can do harm to someone else, and whatever

you do, you're going harm to someone else, and whatever you do, you're going to lose

something very important. There is

no way out of this mess without

having to make a choice that

involves you inflicting some moral

danger on someone else, imposing

moral hazard on yourself in the

sense that are you or are you not

going to be able to look yourself

going to be able to look yourself in the eye. Ignatius going to be able to look yourself in the eye. Ignatius was interested

the eye. Ignatius was interested in lesser choices and when you make

absolute choices about different

persons and then reconcile this

persons and then reconcile this with the fact that societies get

the fact that societies get attacked by people whose intentions are

malignant, this, he said, presents

such a challenge to the collective

good that we may feel we have to

sacrifice some very precious human

rights in order to repel that

rights in order to repel that greater evil. What he believes is

absolutely essential to any

absolutely essential to any properly functioning democracy is that any

such decision to do that is fully

justified. Properly functioning

democracies, he says, must pass

through a very elaborate, highly

moralised, highly institutionalised system

moralised, highly institutionalised system of justification for

coercion, or the loss of rights.

This process is what creates public

trust and why we are having to do

it. Well, I think so far in this

process, we may have rushed with

this anti-terror legislation. Were

the State and Territory premiers given

the State and Territory premiers given a prima facie case for every

tie temp within the anti-terrorism

draft political bill? Or was the

pressure to not be seen to fight

terrorism on Australia soil a part

of that equation? Certainly Chief

Minister Jon Stanhope here in the

ACT felt enough of Ignatiuth ae,

sense of disquiet, to post the sense of disquiet, to post the draft bill on

sense of disquiet, to post the draft bill on his web site, but would we

have seen as many changes between

the first and second draft if he

the first and second draft if he had not? It seems the response of the

Government of the Stanhope action

and also some Labor premiers at the

time carried a sense of dismay that

such material should have become

public. The bill would always have

become public, but I think there

become public, but I think there was a sense from the Government that

a sense from the Government that the public should simply trust those

drafting such legislation to get it

right. I think this flies in the

face of the absolute necessity that

the public is informed, and gets to

participate as far as possible in

any dim munition of their rights.

any dim munition of their rights. I watched that occurring in Britain

watched that occurring in Britain in a very low bust way when the

a very low bust way when the spectre of terror was only months behind

them. I believe we, in Australia,

when we think of this anti-terror

bill and are told, "Just trust us,

bill and are told, "Just trust us," can look back at what we now know

can look back at what we now know to be the chaos within the Immigration

Department is a sign that

be the chaos within the Immigration Department is a sign that cohersive

powers affect people not like us,

asylum seekers, who sadly were

treated, it seems, as non-citizens,

even as non-persons, but cohersive

powers can fall very heavily upon

Australian citizens. But the

difference with the proposed terror

legislation, I guess, is that such

abuses of Prowers and processes as

we now know

abuses of Prowers and processes as we now know happened within the

Department of Immigration would

never see the light of day, or if

they did not for perhaps five years

until after a suppression order

lapsed. I think this should be of

concern to the Australian press

Council who have said the bill must

be amended, so that its successors,

as they relate to publishers, are

removed before enacted as they relate to publishers, are removed before enacted by

Parliament, and to urge a more

considered, timely and open review

by an appropriately composed

Parliament tri-committee as has

Parliament tri-committee as has been the case with proposed security

the case with proposed security laws in the United Kingdom. In the

United Kingdom, where I watched

Blair's bill being debated robustly

and it going down, at least the and it going down, at least the bill in the

and it going down, at least the bill in the original form that Blair

wished, there was an editorial from

the conservative magazine, the

Spectator, a magazine, one would

think, if you read it, might have

been writing about Australia. The

article was called: The politics of

terror. It said, "People are

entitled to ask what the Government

understand by law. Is it there to be enforced

understand by law. Is it there to be enforced to the letter? Or is it

just a kind of cosmic develop p, a

gush of -- yell p, a gush of cit

Kim." The truth is the Government

doesn't really mind much about the

detail of the law. They care for

more that in the aftermath of the

London bombings they should more that in the aftermath of the London bombings they should be seen

to be doing something about the

preachers of hate, even if that

means doing something absurd." A

conservative magazine. Well, as

Ignatiuth said there will also be a

threat. Civil libertarians, he

says, tell us the sky is not

says, tell us the sky is not falling and conservatives say, "You bet the sky is falling and the next and conservatives say, "You bet the sky is falling and the next time it

will be worse." Well, we may never

reach a common view, but that

shouldn't mean we squash the

adversarial justification of the

adversarial justification of the two moral principles debating it,

fighting it out. Our democracies

would be much the poorer if they

didn't, and if they didn't have

didn't, and if they didn't have time to be debated and fought out. Well, didn't, and if they didn't have time to be debated and fought out. Well,

it's this that I believe has not

happened adequately. I suspect

there has been some undue haste and

in a climate of fear, there is a

possibility we seem to be rushing

possibility we seem to be rushing to reling quish long-held civil

liberties with a very long 10-year

sunset clause. I'm not allow in

this view. From the belly of the beast, if

this view. From the belly of the beast, if you like, of that region

which knows terrorism, the Israeli

column nis, Alexander Jacobsen , of

Australia's draft terror bill:

Depriving freedoms without a trial

is a heavy price to pay in terms of

democratic values. It is deep

democratic values. It is deeply against

democratic values. It is deeply against the Anglo-Saxon legal

tradition. Even if such

tradition. Even if such legislation is necessary because of the danger

of mass killings, it's preferable

not to make the life of a

government, trying to pass such

legislation, too easy. It's

important to exam every such law --

examine every such law very closely.

examine every such law very closely." Thirdly and finally, what

about a holistic response to terrorism that picks

about a holistic response to terrorism that picks up hope and

reminds us of freedoms that we have

taken centuries to win, and of the

values of our society that we don't

give away easily. I have been

considering the proposed

considering the proposed anti-terror bill, and considering it I hope

bill, and considering it I hope with keeping an open mind that the

response may well be proportionate

to the threat. The arrests last

week may suggest

to the threat. The arrests last week may suggest that. And let us

suppose that it is indeed

proportionate to the threat. If we

are prepared to sacrifice to this

degree so many of our cherished

rights and liberties to prevent

terrorism's expression on

terrorism's expression on Australian soil, should we not at least also

have a proportionate response to have a proportionate response to its clauses

have a proportionate response to its clauses and address the climate in

which such ideas are born or find

save haven? There -- safe haven?

There is a completely

There is a completely understandable level of fear in the community over

the threat of terrorism. For the

sake of our own sanity and for the

need of a sense of balance in

response to such a threat, I

response to such a threat, I believe we need a politics of hope, hope

that will drive us all

we need a politics of hope, hope that will drive us all to name the

sort of just, secure, better world

in which we want to inhabit and our

kids are left. I think in World

Vision we can make a few comments

Vision we can make a few comments in this regard. We are the nation's

largest charitable organisation and

receive nearly half of all private

Australian donations for overseas

aid and development. Any

significant change in the aid and development. Any significant change in the public's

response to World Vision's cause is

likely to be a barometer of change

in the public's need to play a part

in creating such a world. Well, I

can tell you that change has been

significant. Around 330,000

Australians now make regular

Australians now make regular monthly contributions to World Vision's contributions to World Vision's work around the

contributions to World Vision's work around the world. This last

financial year, including tsunami,

we raised about $350 million.

That's a large organisation. Of

That's a large organisation. Of the 330,000 Australians, 100,000 -

that's 40% of them - made a

commitment to support us regularly,

monthly, in the two years following

the September 11 attacks

monthly, in the two years following the September 11 attacks in 2001.

You might think the opposite, that

after those attacks you would pull

up the draw bridge, you would close

the gate, you would say, "It's a

messy, chaotic world out there.

Let's just think about our selves.

Let's just think about our selves." The response has been exactly the

opposite. Well, is this giving

increase simply reflective of an

increase in charitable giving overall?

increase in charitable giving overall? The facts say no. In 2001,

it increased by 6.5%, however, in

the same period, giving to NGOs

addressing global poverty increased

by 15%. Furthermore, independent

public opinion, tracking the

research we do in a report called

Island Nation, shows that the

proportion of Australians who agree Island Nation, shows that the proportion of Australians who agree

with statements such as, "charities

can make a long-term difference in

the lives of the poor," and

"Everyday people like me can change

the lives of poor people overseas,

the lives of poor people overseas," has increased dramatically. These

figures rose by 26% from 2000 to

2004. More hope, more empowerment,

more belief we can 2004. More hope, more empowerment, more belief we can make a

more belief we can make a difference and change the world. I am a

nation's research -- island

nation's research showed that

Australians link terrorism and

poverty. We have to wage these

poverty. We have to wage these wars simultaneously. Research shows

simultaneously. Research shows that Australians are the highest of 60

nations in both their fear of

terrorism and their concern for

poverty - the two are connected. Well, Well, the figure

poverty - the two are connected. Well, the figures suggest and the

response to the Asian tsunami

perhaps confirms that we feel more

connected, not less connected, to

the rest of the world. We are not

an island nation. We actually

aspire as a middle ranking power to

be a model, global citizen. Being

one without the responsibilities of

a super power to make a

one without the responsibilities of a super power to make a

contribution. Australians seem to

sense that the fabric of

civilisation is delicate, that when

it tears, it can affect all of us

it tears, it can affect all of us in some way. After September 11, the

President of the World Bank, James

wul if he Sen wrote, there was a

need to address some of the root

causes of tairp, those of economic

exclusion, poverty and

exclusion, poverty and underdevelopment." Even US

underdevelopment." Even US President George W. Bush commented to the

United Nations, "We fight poverty

because hope is the answer to

terror. We will challenge the

poverty and hopelessness and lack

poverty and hopelessness and lack of education, failed governments that

too often allow conditions that

terrorists can seize." I was there

at the UN summit in September. I have to

at the UN summit in September. I have to say George Bush sounded

have to say George Bush sounded like Bono. It was quite remarkable.

Well, the link between poverty and

terrorism is a contentious issue,

though mainly because some have

claimed a strict causal link

extrapolating from Garry Becker's

1968 paper, crime and punishment, extrapolating from Garry Becker's 1968 paper, crime and punishment,

1968 paper, crime and punishment, an economic approach, which tried to

show the crime could result from

rational cost benefit analysis.

rational cost benefit analysis. The trouble applying this to terrorism

in particular to suicide bombing,

was that success entails the death

of the perpetrator, which makes a

ration, cost benefit analysis

impossible. Certainly there is no

strict causal link between poverty impossible. Certainly there is no strict causal link between poverty

and terrorism. In fact, Walter

Lekur of the national centre for

strategic and global studies

recognised the global elements of

terrorism and concluded, "Poverty

does not cause terrorism. In the

world's 50 poorest countries, there

is little to no terrorism." He went

on to report that Arab countries

on to report that Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, north

Africa, the terrorists were not in

the poorest and most neglected

district; but hailed from places

with concentrations of radical

preachers. No causal link, however,

I want to assert that terrorism and

poverty share a symbiotic

poverty share a symbiotic relationship. While those that

commit terrorist offences may be

educated, such networks require

poverty and disorder and

poverty and disorder and humiliation and a sense of injustice to hide in

and grow. Al-Qaeda would have

struggled much harder to mount

terror attacks if it were not for a

failed poor state Afghanistan that

provided a haven for training, recruiting

provided a haven for training, recruiting and inspiring foot

soldiers. And the Taliban would

soldiers. And the Taliban would not have taken control of Afghanistan

were it not for the 45,000-odd mad

drass in Pakistan of which 10 to

drass in Pakistan of which 10 to 15% are affiliated with extremist

religious political groups. The

Taliban developed their roots among

young boys from crowded, refugee

camps, taught at radical mad drass.

camps, taught at radical mad drass. Radical preachers and poverty , the

two, no-one being the necessary

condition totally. Indeed, in 1997,

when the Taliban offensive stalled,

the mad dras 15 completely shut

down. It sent its entire student

body across the border to

Afghanistan helping

body across the border to Afghanistan helping the attacker

succeed. So these have become the

new breeding ground for Islamic

militants. It is for this reason

that mad drasing and their

centrality in -- mad dras 15s and

is so critical to address. In

Pakistan, which spends only 2% of

its gross national income on public education, one

its gross national income on public education, one of the lowest rates

in the world, it's the religious

schools, the madrasas that fill the

void in the basic area of social

education, where the government has

failed. The parallels are found in

other essential areas, such as

other essential areas, such as clean water, health care, even law and

order, all of which many of the

radical groups that sponsor order, all of which many of the radical groups that sponsor

radical groups that sponsor madrasas provide now to their new

constituents. That's why we

constituents. That's why we welcome the overnight announcement of the

Howard Government the $40 million

Howard Government the $40 million to Pakistan, including scholarships

Pakistan, including scholarships and education. That's the right

direction. Similarly, social

services are carried out by Hamas

services are carried out by Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon,

and the recent appearance of the

militant group,

and the recent appearance of the militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba

banned by the Pakistani government,

when extremism enters areas where

social network

social networks disintegrate.

That's where NGOs, including World

Vision also need to be in those

zones. Terrorists seek ref few

where the rule of law is not in

where the rule of law is not in place. They look to the

disenfranchised, but smart aid and

development can do, whether through

NGOs or government, what needs to

NGOs or government, what needs to be done - building wealth and

transparency, creating hope Andy

minute initialing fear, and

minute initialing fear, and bringing the poor and excluded into the

global marketplace, so they have a

stake. There is a lot of evidence that as countries

stake. There is a lot of evidence that as countries have a greater

stake in the global market, that

terrorism does decrease. In an

article of the jurn nil of Conflict

Resolutions, the authors discovered

that as a country becomes more

developed, the number of trans-

developed, the number of trans-national terrorism incidents

decreases within its borders.

trans-national terrorism incidents decreases within its borders.

Decreases the number of

trans-national terrorists incidents

within that country by 19.3%. So

well -targeted aid, development

assistance, certainly economic

growth is an essential response to

eliminating the climate in which

terrorism is born or finds a safe

haven. It's -- that's why fair trade still provides haven. It's -- that's why fair trade still provides the greatest

hope to lift people out of grinding

poverty,er as we've seen millions

lifted -- lifted out in India and

China. It's why Europe, Japan and

the US need to abolish their

agricultural subsidies without

demanding that poor countries

demanding that poor countries simply open up their markets. $400

open up their markets. $400 million a year in agricultural subsidies, from taxpayers, a year in agricultural subsidies, from taxpayers, to support

inefficient farmers in Europe,

inefficient farmers in Europe, Japan and the US. We only give $50

billion a year in aid. $1,200

billion a year in weapons and

armaments, $400 billion that lock

out Asian and African farmers. Yet

when it comes to free and fair

trade, we can't simply say to

developing countries, "Just liberalise.

developing countries, "Just liberalise." If Indonesia was would

be forced to liberalise too quickly,

it would mean a loss of income for

many of the 40 million people who

depend on rice, displacing them

depend on rice, displacing them into an uncertain future and urban slums,

providing disenchanted people for

many as recruits for radical causes.

I want to conclude by saying that

this decade, I believe, tackling I want to conclude by saying that this decade, I believe, tackling

this decade, I believe, tackling the causes of poverty, is one of the

best solutions to addressing

terrorism. I believe that whether

you agree with that proposition or

not, poverty remains the great

not, poverty remains the great moral issue of this century. For this

generation, the issue of reducing

extreme poverty is the new generation, the issue of reducing extreme poverty is the new slavery

cause and crusade. In a world

cause and crusade. In a world where 40 million people are now infected

with HIV, 25 million have died, 6

million children died this year, it

puts terrorism in perspective.

Where 30,000 children will die

Where 30,000 children will die today from preventable diseases, 10 World

Trade Centers every day. A world

with 3 billion people live Trade Centers every day. A world with 3 billion people live on less

than $2 a day a a world where

than $2 a day a a world where Africa remains the epicentre of poverty,

where World Vision supporters give

more to Africa than actually our

AusAID program, though our AusAID

program focusing on the region is

still the right priority. It is my

hope that Australia will not

hope that Australia will not neglect the chronic poverty still suffered

in Africa, that we will take our

in Africa, that we will take our part alongside Britain and other

countries, arguing for a better

countries, arguing for a better deal on aid, trade and debt forgiveness

for Africa. Let me conclude by

saying that earlier this year,

Nelson Mandela lawn mped the make

poverty history campaign in

poverty history campaign in London's Trafalgar Square. He went against

doctor's advice because he is so

frail. In a trembling voice but

frail. In a trembling voice but still resonant with more hall rort,

he said these words: Like slavery

and part hide, poverty is not

natural. It is man mad and it can

be overcome and eradicated by the

actions of human beings.

actions of human beings. Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity,

not an act of justice. It is the

protection of a fundamental human

right, the right to dignity and a

decent life.

right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While 'certificate

persists, there is no true freedom.

persists, there is no true freedom." Bono got up, he was standing next

Bono got up, he was standing next to him and with that Irish look,

him and with that Irish look, looked out on the crowd of young people

out on the crowd of young people and said, "You might think it's

said, "You might think it's mystical Irish sentimentalism when I say

let's make poverty history, but I'm

prepared to spend the rest of my

life giving it a go." Suddenly you

see these young people on life giving it a go." Suddenly you see these young people on their

see these young people on their feet with this sense, here is a cause,

here is a moral frame big enough to

harness our energies in a world

where we've solved the problem of

supply, you know, the problem of

supply, you know, the problem of how many mobile phones a 16-year-old

teenage girl needs and how many

teenage girl needs and how many wide screen TVs we need. Here was a

movement being born, with Live 8 screen TVs we need. Here was a movement being born, with Live 8

concerts, billions watched. A new

political tit Wency, here with the

click of the finger every 3 seconds,

another child has died and saying,

"I don't want to live in a world

like that. In a blow gal village,

like that. In a blow gal village, I can't avert my head." Next week

can't avert my head." Next week here in Parliament there will be

in Parliament there will be hundreds of young people circling Parliament, visiting

of young people circling Parliament, visiting over 60 politicians from

oak tree Foundation and World

Vision, young people saying, "This

is the issue for our generation.

is the issue for our generation." And this movement has already had

some wins. The par bell of

terrorism and poverty really was

terrorism and poverty really was the G8. Mr Were the Live 8 concerts,

Stink. Sting singing, "We'll be watching

Stink. Sting singing, "We'll be watching you," and then there are

watching you," and then there are be London bombings. You think, "Oh,

no, the poor are going to wait at

the back of the queue again." Knack,

30,000 people died on 9/11 and it

went unreported, and the day after,

and it went unreported. 9/11 was

and it went unreported. 9/11 was us and our security. Will the poor go

to the back of the queue again? and our security. Will the poor go to the back of the queue again?

Thankfully, this movement had some

wins. The G8 did vote for $50

billion extra for Africa, but made

no move on fair trade. This

movement is the new slavery

movement. When will burr force

raised slavery in 1789, it was

unthinkable it could be abolished.

Slavery to the empire was unthinkable it could be abolished. Slavery to the empire was the backbone

backbone like wheat and wool was to

Australia. In saying that, I

believe that we have seen some wins

also with our own government.

also with our own government. Prime Minister Howard at the UN summit

announced a near doubling of aid.

There ain't no votes in aid, as

Nixon said, and yet here

There ain't no votes in aid, as Nixon said, and yet here was a near

doubling because there have been so

many people partitions under the

media radar, our politicians. This

was a great win, even that UN

was a great win, even that UN summit which was called to benchmark how

we're going five years into the

millennium development goals, the

global plan to reduce poverty was hijacked

global plan to reduce poverty was hijacked by terrorism and the

security sound sill. Again, the

poor going to the back of the queue.

Poverty is for this generation.

Let me conclude, terrorist threats

do aim at political leadership.

They do suggest to our political

leaders that fear will prove more

useful than hope. They do stampede

us to actually disregard the public

in the choice between freedom and

in the choice between freedom and security and their participation.

They can side track us, though,

They can side track us, though, that we spend more time squatting the

moss queet toes of terrorism,

moss queet toes of terrorism, rather than -- mosquitoes of terrorism,

rather than draining the swamps

where they breed. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

where they breed. Thank you. APPLAUSE Thank you very much, Tim

Costello. As usual, we have a

period of media questions now and

the first one of those today is

the first one of those today is from David Humphries. David Humphries

from the 'Sydney Morning Herald',

reverend Costello. If I could take

you back to your remarks about fear

as the common denominator of human

behaviour and its effectiveness as

behaviour and its effectiveness as a marker in determining anti-terror

policies, how appropriate is marker in determining anti-terror policies, how appropriate is that

now in the era of the suicide

bomber, encouraged as he is, to the

view that his actions amount to

martyrdom? Well, it's certainly --

well, it certainly underscores fear.

How do you negotiate with someone

who doesn't value their own life?

How do you enter into the

How do you enter into the assumption that there is always something we

can trade off? The discussion can trade off? The discussion around what produces a

can trade off? The discussion around what produces a suicide bomber is a

really complex one. I've suggested

it is radical preachers who solve

the identify question for a suicide

bomber, who often has the identify

question maybe as a second

generation Australian or Brit who

under that preaching is given a

vision that they have a cause.

Their cause is Islam and the

humiliation of Islam Their cause is Islam and the humiliation of Islam being wound

back. But also in my work in World

Vision - and we work in Palestinian

camps and we work in many Muslim

countries - we have around

countries - we have around Australia Muslim community centres collecting

for World Vision, a Christian

humanitarian organisation for the

Pakistan earthquake. They've

collected nearly $500,000. So with Pakistan earthquake. They've collected nearly $500,000. So with

Muslim employees, with Muslims

collecting, this is a sign to me

that most Muslims fear

that most Muslims fear Taliban-style rule and burqa and Shi'ia

rule and burqa and Shi'ia imposition as much as many Australians and

as much as many Australians and many Christians. Concerns I hear from

the Muslim community, I'm amazed

the Muslim community, I'm amazed how they echo the concerns I hear from they echo the concerns I hear from the Christian community in

Australia. They're mainly

Australia. They're mainly concerned about marriage breakdown and drugs

and prom nis cute and too much

gambling. In fact, what we share

gambling. In fact, what we share in common is great, including that

common is great, including that fear of suicide bombers. So, that fear

with not being able to negotiate it

is real. I don't want to

is real. I don't want to trivialise it it, but

is real. I don't want to trivialise it it, but I do want to say that in

finding ways to address identify

questions, to address the

humiliation and the burning

injustice that many of those

injustice that many of those suicide bombers and others feel, which we

may say is really unfair, but they

feel, we have to still find ways of

dealing with that, without making

concessions that what they do is

right. Death violence

concessions that what they do is right. Death violence -- death,

violence is always wrong. Suicide

bombing is always wrong. Some

European justifications of saying

well, the exception is Palestinian

suicide bombing, because what other

avenue they have, they are so power

also? Yes, they are power also, but

Palestinian suicide bombing is

wrong, morally wrong. It is never

justifiable. Having said that, to deal with that fear, justifiable. Having said that, to deal with that fear, we still have

to ask the question: How do we

dislodge them from that passion

dislodge them from that passion that makes them suicide bombers and

dislodge the rest of the community

from being - Muslim community from

being stig mattised by catch-all

laws. Next question from David

Denham. Thank you. Very difficult

asking question when you agree with just about every word that's asking question when you agree with just about every word that's said,

but I would like to first of all

continue about the fear thing,

because in Michael Moore's film,

bowling for column bien. He had

this nice two-liner: There are two

things government need to be

successful, uch' got to keep them

afraid, and make sure you keep

spending money and then you will be

re-elected." I think this is part

re-elected." I think this is part of the conscious thing of

re-elected." I think this is part of the conscious thing of the

the conscious thing of the political situation in which we're in now -

deep people slightly afraid. But

deep people slightly afraid. But to get onto the causes of terrorism,

which I think is the real crooks of

this and how we do that, because I

think the very term, the war on

terror, as soon as we say that we

failed, because I think it was

failed, because I think it was Miles Franklin who said, "War can never failed, because I think it was Miles Franklin who said, "War can never

Franklin who said, "War can never be won." As as soon as as you declare

war, Japan, the two Germanys,

Vietnam, so on, if you declare war

and go in, particularly against an im

impoverished nation, you're never

going to win. I think we have to

change that perception that it is a

war. It's not. It's an

understanding. So the question is. understanding. So the question is.. What do

understanding. So the question is.. What do you think our Christian

leaders can do, the Bushes, the

Blairs and the Howards, what can

they do with it from their

they do with it from their Christian backgrounds to tackle this problem

of values? What can they do to

understand the - what should they

understand the - what should they be doing to understand the mind that

goes in the terrorist?

doing to understand the mind that goes in the terrorist? I'm sure on

the Muslim side it's exactly the

same. Because they think they're

same. Because they think they're on the high moral ground, we think

we're on the high moral ground.

Howo what can we do to inflew

Wednesday their political

goingsings. ... How do you have a

war on an abstract noun? And I

war on an abstract noun? And I think that probably is

war on an abstract noun? And I think that probably is right. I think if

we've learnt anything from the last

century, it is that war has

century, it is that war has outlived its usefulness. Whatever objects

war once achieved, it rarely

achieves those objects, and now

achieves those objects, and now with the war in Iraq going so badly,

the war in Iraq going so badly, more and more Americans are asking that

question: What have we achieved?

Regime change, yes, but building a democracy and I think more Regime change, yes, but building a democracy and I think more

democracy and I think more Americans are saying, "If we thought we could

do this in Iraq, maybe having a

do this in Iraq, maybe having a look at our history of trying it in

at our history of trying it in South America for the last 25 years might

have been a good test case." What

can we do? What can Christian

leaders do? I personally think this

is where we have to recognise that

the more we talk about fear, fear

works to evaporate hope and

the more we talk about fear, fear works to evaporate hope and to

evaporate trust, and it is hope and

trust that ultimately allow us to

hear the other person, that their

concerns might have legitimacy,

concerns might have legitimacy, that there are injustices that we have

there are injustices that we have to acknowledge, the injustices of the

trade system where African-Asian

farmers are locked out of trade.

farmers are locked out of trade. We say, "Aid is just

farmers are locked out of trade. We say, "Aid is just a handout, and

say, "Aid is just a handout, and why don't they fix their corrupt

governments or their questions,

governments or their questions," when the hand-up, by then working

hard as most African farmers do and

still watch their children die of

malnutrition because they're locked

out of markets is an injustice. So

it's hope and trust that actually

allows us to listen. It is fear that

allows us to listen. It is fear that actually slams the door shut,

and I think Christian leaders, of

all people, because if there was

all people, because if there was any note that Christian faith strikes,

it is that God isn't a god of

judgment, he is a god of love.

Shown us in Jesus a face that not

only loves, but struggles against

anything that cripples and deforms

human life. That's a good definition of sin.

human life. That's a good definition of sin. Everything that

cripples and deforms. Injustice

does that. When the image of God

does that. When the image of God is crippled by poverty, salvation is

also restoring that image, saying

that poverty must be addressed. So

Christian leaders need to read

Christian leaders need to read their Bible, to take some of that

seriously, because appealing to

seriously, because appealing to fear slams the door shut and doesn't allow that

slams the door shut and doesn't allow that bridge that says, "Look,

we share things really in common -

hope for our kids, hope for some

future." Those things we must

emphasise. Andrew Fraser of the

'Canberra Times'. I was wondering

how important you thought a bill of

rights would be as the nation

consider

considers our response to the

anti-terrorism legislation before the Senate, and

anti-terrorism legislation before the Senate, and do you favour a

particular model of a bill of

rights? I think a bill of rights is

important. I think though you can

say to me as a former lawyer,

"You're just giving your colleagues

another case and another case," the

other argument is needed. We saw

with Vivian Solon and Cornelia raw

and a number of the asylum-seeker

cases where we saw people and a number of the asylum-seeker cases where we saw people suffer

terribly for up to three or four

years, only to find that they were

refugees under the definition. He

had a legitimate right under the UN

convention to actually be given a

hearing, that that necessitates a

bill of rights. We have not done

well without a bill of rights. As

to a form I think in the first

instance, it probably does need to

be an Act of Parliament, getting a

constitutional bill of rights, as be an Act of Parliament, getting a constitutional bill of rights, as

constitutional bill of rights, as we saw with Republican votes is juch

too difficult. So like the New

Zealand model or British model, I

think that gives sufficient

protection, even though in theory a

parliament can vee roek it at any

time. Laura tingle. Laura Tingle

from the 'Financial Review'. I was time. Laura tingle. Laura Tingle from the 'Financial Review'. I was

interested in how World Vision or

any NGO responds to the sorts of

fear you're talking about. Have

fear you're talking about. Have you changed your strategy and the way

you spend money in the wake of 9/11,

particularly given there seems to

have been this enormous increase in

how much you're getting? I was also

interested in the position where a charitable group interested in the position where a charitable group gets stuck between

government and rebels and I was

particularly thinking of Aceh and

the issue of resettlement camps you

were rebuilding and I was curious

with what was happening there.

Sure. Let me start with the latter

one. The sucks was that in Aceh

one. The sucks was that in Aceh the traditional housing centres that we

set up very quickly could be

co-opted by the military to watch,

you know, whether Acehnese,

co-opted by the military to watch, you know, whether Acehnese, free

Acehnese forces infiltrated or to

weed them out or to deal with them.

That proved entirely a false fear.

The places where they were built

basically the military weren't

watching. The fact that we got

watching. The fact that we got them up quickly and housed about 3,000

up quickly and housed about 3,000 or 4,000 people meant that desperate

people got some shelter. Those

people got some shelter. Those transitional housing centres have

now been welcomed by the Acehnese,

by those free Acehnese who have

by those free Acehnese who have laid down their weapons, by certainly

down their weapons, by certainly the Indonesian Government as a quick

Indonesian Government as a quick and necessary response, but it

highlights the issue that any aid

organisation in territory where

there is great hos tift has to make

choices, and I have to say --

hostility, has to make choice hs choices, and I have to say -- hostility, has to make choice hs

hostility, has to make choice hs and I have to say this is the die lem

Nah of pure neutrality versus

Nah of pure neutrality versus making choices around the add vow kacy

issues. All aid agencies found to

their horror, feed the desperate,

whoever they are, in the refugee

camps that we were just feeding,

through to militia

through to militias who reorganised

in the camps and went

through to militias who reorganised in the camps and went out and

massacred. You move then to Bosnia

and their aid agencies were almost

giving away the neutrality. They

were pleading with the foreign

powers, "Intervene. Feeding those

who are going to be massacred

tomorrow is almost feeding

tomorrow is almost feeding potential corpses." But then with the aid

althcys becoming co-opted with foreign policies.

althcys becoming co-opted with foreign policies. This is an issue

that the foreign aid agencies have

to deal with. When it comes to the

climate of fear, World Vision

certainly will resist saying, "Look,

this might be a marketing spin in

playing on fear. We might actually

hook in more dollars if we talk it

up." That is fundamentally against

the very values I've been talking

about. The aim, whether it's World Vision or any

about. The aim, whether it's World Vision or any other NGO, isn't to

outcompete that NGO. The aim is to

outcompete poverty, and poverty

outcompete poverty, and poverty will only be dealt with if we can build

the conditions of hope and trust

that see us address extreme poverty,

injustice, conflict resolution.

That is so tally counter productive

if you play on fear.

That is so tally counter productive if you play on fear. All you do is

undercut the very purpose for why

you exist. Next question is from

Geoff barker. Geoff barker also

Geoff barker. Geoff barker also from the 'Financial Review', and this is

a question of a reluctant Hobbsan.

You have argued the need for

informed, rational choice of the

lesser evil in reaching the informed, rational choice of the lesser evil in reaching the

security, freedom balance, but

security, freedom balance, but given that the terror law that troubles

you is the third piece of such

legislation after the ASIO and the

first terrorist law and given that

all of them have only been modified

after public pressure, can we have

any reasonable hope that the

any reasonable hope that the present Federal Government can be persuaded

to encourage the debate leading to Federal Government can be persuaded to encourage the debate leading to

to encourage the debate leading to a rational choice of the lesser evil

when, as you say, fear works so

when, as you say, fear works so well for those in power? And it's even

cheaper and easier than reducing

poverty and fighting AIDS? Probably

not. It's not looking likely.

However, I think the fact that

However, I think the fact that there has been

However, I think the fact that there has been discussion and

has been discussion and modification shows that at least democracy is

having its pressure points, and I

think that's a good thing. It's

very interesting when you think

about trying to weigh up the risk

about trying to weigh up the risk at the moment. There is a real risk.

There are some terrible ElBaradeiic

acts that have been committed, from Bali to

acts that have been committed, from Bali to Madrid, as I've talked

about, but there is not a risk to

our way of life and our values like

we often hear, like I suspect the

communist risk was in the 1950s.

communist risk was in the 1950s. It had a pretty universal appeal.

had a pretty universal appeal. Here in Australia, journalists,

historians, politicians were

actually attracted to communist. They were

actually attracted to communist. They were at times fifthth column

nis. It's interesting that Dr He

have Vietnam goes and argues that

fear before the high sourt saying,

"Though there is greater traction,

let's not give up our fundamental

liberties." There is not the

universal appeal of a Taliban-style

shooria law imposition. I don't

shooria law imposition. I don't see any Australians saying, "Because of

the fear, I will put my hand up for

that. That looks good." It's

totally rejected and mainly

totally rejected and mainly rejected by Muslims too, who can live by

Sharia law and live under Australia.

It's only the full Sharia law or

I'm dispeedent as a Muslim." But I certainly think that

I'm dispeedent as a Muslim." But I certainly think that in this --

disobedient as a Muslim. I

certainly think that it is a

certainly think that it is a climate of fear, there is discussion that

there be amendments. My preference

is that not a length of time for

discussion so much but tone from

discussion so much but tone from the Government saying, "This is the

bill. We do welcome your views.

bill. We do welcome your views." At least opportunity for it, and bill. We do welcome your views." At least opportunity for it, and with

some amendment, we have seen some

some amendment, we have seen some of that opportunity. Michelle Grattan.

Michelle Grattan of the age age.

Two questions - one following up on the specifics

the specifics of the bill. What do

you think about the sedition

section, and do you agree with some

people who say that shouldn't be in

the legislation a