Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I invite you to reconsider the advice you've just given to this chamber, Minister. I think you were loose with the words you just used, and I'm concerned that you're placing inaccurate information on the record and potentially misleading this chamber. I thought I made my argument clear, but I'll make it again: proposed section 90.4 defines the 'national security' of Australia to mean any of the following—and then it goes through a series of criteria that you would think are reasonable in terms of how 'national security' is defined: the defence of our country, the protection of our country, the protection of the integrity of our country's territory and borders, and so forth. I want to put those aside and take you to section 90.4(1)(e), which catches a country's, including Australia's, 'economic relations' with another country.

So, again, I put to you: if someone, even though their intent may be to make a political point about animal cruelty—for example, in the context of the hypothetical that I've put to you—is 'aware' that their actions could or would damage Australia's economic relations with the country to which the sheep are being exported, by delaying and perhaps preventing, totally, the export of those sheep, wouldn't that place them in a category of being 'reckless' and caught under the sabotage provisions of this legislation because of the way you've defined 'national security' in section 90.4(1)(e)?