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

Minister, the issue I have here is that you've just, in an attempt to assist the Senate to understand the term 'domestic violence', talked about extreme violence. That's not what the explanatory memorandum says. That says 'great physical force'. You might think those terms are interchangeable. I actually don't. I think one sets a different threshold to the other. This goes back to the problem that I articulated in my speech on the second reading yesterday: you haven't defined the term 'domestic violence'. Every time we ask you about it, the words you use to attempt to define domestic violence change. If I were a High Court judge looking through this debate to try to find out what the government's intentions were around this legislation, I think you would have already provided me with three or four different forms of words in an attempt to indicate to the Senate what you mean by domestic violence. This is the danger when you refuse to define these terms in the legislation.

This is a dog's breakfast of a debate, and it's now a dog's breakfast of a piece of legislation. I am astounded that the Senate is about to vote this through on the third reading. I'm so concerned about this that we are going to divide against this on the third reading so that the Australian people can absolutely know that the Greens had nothing to do with this dog's breakfast of a piece of legislation that fails to define the terms under which the Army can be called out to kill Australians. This is an extraordinary morning in the Senate.

This is what I'd like to ask you, Minister. This question isn't about the government's intent. This is about what would be possible should this legislation pass. I want to ask you this: would it be possible for a call-out order to be made to address civil disobedience with a reasonable likelihood of serious damage to property? Would it be possible, if this legislation passes, that a call-out order could be made to address a circumstance of civil disobedience where there is a reasonable likelihood of serious damage to property? Is that possible or not?