Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

Again, we're distinguishing between different intent. You are talking about someone who intends to disrupt a particular trade for a particular reason as opposed to someone who intends to damage Australia's interests. That is quite a separate intention. That's why there's no prospect of that in circumstances where someone was acting in order to deal with animal welfare issues as opposed to the intent or recklessness that's needed. If you go to chapter 2 of the Criminal Code, obviously intent is pretty clear. But when we talk about recklessness the prosecution is required to prove that a person is aware of a substantial risk that their conduct will prejudice Australia's national security or advantage the national security of a foreign country, and, having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.