David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will move on with yet another example, although my focus is still on 92.2. I invite you to consider the situation where a Catholic priest is campaigning to oppose legislation allowing for assisted suicide. That Catholic priest is acting in collaboration with the Vatican. You could argue that that Catholic priest is being directed by or supervised by a foreign principal, being the Vatican. He may, in fact, be literally directed or supervised by the Vatican, so the priest may indeed be acting at the behest of somebody acting on behalf of the Vatican. They may, indeed, be seeking to influence—or they are seeking to influence—a political event; namely, the outcome of a vote in the parliament, and they may well be engaging in covert activity directed at that outcome. They may well be having quiet meetings, telling fairy stories and not necessarily engaging in open political dialogue—whatever it takes, as a book once famously said—to achieve the defeat of this legislation. Wouldn't that Catholic priest be in breach of this section?