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

Firstly, let me clarify the Greens' view on this legislation for you, Minister. I thought I had made it pretty clear. We do not support lowering the threshold, in the way that this legislation proposes to do, to make it easier to call out the Army onto the streets in this country and potentially use lethal force against Australian citizens. It's also worth my placing on the record exactly what I said last night, because it was either deliberately or otherwise misrepresented by some coalition senators in the debate last night. What our second reading amendments were proposing was not that parliament needed to be recalled in order for the call-out order to be made. That is clearly not the effect of our second reading amendments. Our second reading amendments were to make it very clear that the Greens believe that if a call-out order is made, parliament should be recalled within six days, if it's not sitting already, and that when parliament—within those six days—is recalled, an instrument, which is a disallowable instrument, should be laid on the table justifying the reasons for the call-out. That doesn't relate to Australia going to war, which was the deliberate inaccurate conflation that was made by Senator Macdonald and others last night. It relates to call-out of the ADF within Australia. That is different from us going to war.

The Greens' view on Australia going to war has been made abundantly clear for well over a decade now. We don't believe Australia should go to war without parliamentary approval—very simple, very basic, very easy. We do not believe that executive government, with no accountability whatsoever, ought to be able to make the decision to send our country to war and to send the men and women who serve in our Defence Force overseas to die and to kill other people without the parliament signing off on it. That's in relation to going to war. In relation to a call-out order, which is the matter covered in this legislation, we are not saying that parliament needs to endorse it before it's made but that, if one is made, parliament should be recalled within six days and should have the capacity to disallow that call-out order. That is the position of the Greens, and I want to place that clearly on the record.

With regard to domestic violence, Minister, thank you for agreeing that it is not defined in the Constitution. I understand that terms in the Constitution are from time to time effectively defined by High Court decisions. I suspect most senators understand that. As you said this morning, it is the government's position that domestic violence refers to conduct that is marked by great physical force. You've placed on the record that things like peaceful protests, industrial action or civil disobedience would not fall within the definition of domestic violence but then you put a caveat on that this morning, Minister, where you said 'except where there is a significant risk of death or injury to people or significant property damage'. I don't have those words in front of me, because they are not in the explanatory memorandum anywhere I can understand, so this is a new addition to what the government says it regards the term of domestic violence as meaning. In this context can I be clear: would the government consider a call-out of the ADF simply to prevent significant damage to property that occurred as a result of peaceful protest, industrial action or civil disobedience?