When the Prime Minister can attract criticism for using the world "Team Australia" in the context of battling terrorism and religious persecution, we have a serious problem with the liberties or otherwise of speech in Australia.

A simple, commonsense set of standards ought to apply. For a start, no one has a mortgage on wisdom.

In a religious context both the Bible and the Koran record ancient histories of war and violence but both preach tolerance and peace.

Both foster a theme that with God there is eternal life but without God the prospects for a quality after-life look pretty grim.

In Australia we may disagree with what people say but we will defend passionately their right to say it.

In Australia we support laws against religious, cultural, sexual and demographic persecution or vilification. We do that not to stifle freedom of speech or assembly, but because we are a tolerant, hospitable society and we want laws in place to protect them.

Just as we would vehemently oppose persecution of any religion in Australia, so we would vehemently oppose any religious incitement to hate, persecute or destroy.

That's about it. Anyone confused about what's going on in Iraq and how it impacts on Australia should re-read the above.

Just as Christians in Australia should not be judged by the actions of some religious cult advocating the persecution of gays, so should Muslims not - repeat not - be judged by the murderous extremism of religious zealots in Iraq.

This is where politicians come into the picture. Politicians are inadvertently the worst agents of hate, belligerence and intolerance.

Parliament would rank alongside the church as a key role model for social behaviour, and yet parliamentary debate incites the very vices which politicians publicly scorn.

A key tenet of parliamentary debate is to marginalise opponents with ridicule. But again, no one has a mortgage on wisdom. The population knows this because voters regularly change governments.

Branding someone as a maggot, wet lettuce, liar (now a cliche), mongrel, brain-damaged, fool, right/left wing extremist, is Parliament's own version of the Dictionary for Dummies. A cheap, unintelligent way to mount an argument.

To most Australians, political abuse is like an overgrown fingernail clawed across a blackboard. Political abuse shuts down proper debate. It incites hatred and bigotry. It fosters intolerance and violence.

People have migrated to Australia either for economic reasons or because they were fleeing the very elements of intolerance which parliamentary debate in Australia sometimes encourages.

We cannot begin to appreciate the impact such debate has on the wider community, where emotions are easily ignited.

In defending robust parliamentary debate Paul Keating once said Parliament was a "clearing house" for ideas. Yes, but clever insults or ridicule have never captivated an audience other than a bored press gallery.

People are more likely to listen to an argument when it remains an uncluttered idea, free of personal insults and revisionism.

Let's face it, the moment a Liberal or Labor politician blabbers on about the dishonest, mischievous, double dealing evils of the other side, they lose roughly half their target audience.