George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I want to stress again that Senator Feeney and the opposition are trying to achieve the same thing here; but those who may be listening to this broadcast who think that this is merely a verbal quibble should be reassured that it is a little more than that. The opposition support the bill but there are two respects in which we think the bill is badly drafted. I feel sorry for Senator Feeney, because he was reading out a script that no doubt was written for him by a junior officer of the Attorney-General's Department. And I have to say to you, Senator Feeney, with great respect, what you say is wrong—what you say is wrong in law. For you to be right—if we can deal with the definition question first; the definition of coercion—it would have to be the case that there were conduct which you say is criminalised by this act and which constitutes psychological oppression or taking advantage of a person's vulnerability which was not force, which was not duress as the courts have developed the meaning of that term over many, many years, which was not detention and which was not an abuse of power. One can well imagine that there may be psychologically oppressive conduct which was neither detention nor force. But how could there be psychologically oppressive conduct that was not an abuse of power? And, as I tried to point out in my remarks a little earlier, given that the courts have always considered duress or the essence of duress as being the overbearing of the will of a person in a weaker position by a person in a stronger position, how could it not be duress?

So the point we make is that there is no conduct that would not be caught by the opposition's amendment. We are not excluding or lowering the threshold, as it were, by introducing the amendment. We are merely trying to make the definition of coercion sharper by removing the rhetorical language of no legal consequence.

I seek your guidance, Madam Temporary Chairman. I have only moved the first set of opposition amendments that is to deal with coercion. Senator Feeney has addressed those and also anticipated the amendments I have not yet moved—which is fine. But I suspect the first set of opposition amendments should be put and then I will seek leave to move together the second set of opposition amendments, and I will address them at that time.