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

Thanks, Minister. This is not hypothetical because paragraph 231A of the addendum to the explanatory memorandum accepts that the term 'domestic violence' is not defined in the bill and then goes on to attempt to define it by saying that the term 'refers to conduct that is marked by great physical force and would include a terrorist attack' and a few other things. Then it says:

Peaceful protests, industrial action or civil disobedience would not fall within the definition of 'domestic violence'.

That's what the addendum to the EM says, but then you're getting up in here today and saying that, if there is a reasonable likelihood of serious damage to property, actually civil disobedience can fall within the definition of 'domestic violence'.

This is about calling the Army out to potentially use lethal force against Australian citizens. I think you have to be very clear about the circumstances under which that can occur. You've now put in your speech an addition to what is in the explanatory memorandum. Quite frankly, I have no certainty in my mind about what 'domestic violence' means, because you have failed to define it in this legislation. I do not accept your argument that, just because a term is used in the Constitution, it can't be legislatively defined within the context of a particular piece of legislation. That is a circular Sir Humphrey argument that I don't accept.

The bigger point here is that you're asking the Senate to pass this legislation and you are adding to the addendum to the explanatory memorandum on the fly in this place and are completely changing the meaning of the explanatory memorandum, which says that civil disobedience would not fall within the definition of 'domestic violence'. You're now telling us that it could fall within the definition of 'domestic violence' as long as there is a reasonable likelihood of serious damage to property.

So again I ask the question you didn't answer when you were last on your feet: is it the situation that, should this legislation pass, the Australian Defence Force will be able to be called out onto the streets in response to an event of civil disobedience if there is a reasonable likelihood of serious damage to property? It is a yes or no question.