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

Minister, I listened very clearly to your arguments last night and this morning in relation to the term 'domestic violence'. You are right that it is in the Constitution, as I pointed out in my second reading contribution. You were very clear last night that the term was defined in the Constitution. That's actually not right, Minister. I think it would be better for the record if you would get up and admit that you were wrong last night when you said that the term 'domestic violence' was defined in the Constitution. It is not defined anywhere in the Constitution; it is simply mentioned in the Constitution. I think accuracy on the public record is important. But your argument today, as I understand it, is that it is not possible in this legislation to define the term 'domestic violence', because the term is also in the Constitution. To me, that seems to be a circular argument, and one that I don't accept. Are you saying, Minister, that no legislation in this country can define any word that is in the Constitution? Because if that's what you're saying, I don't accept it.

I want to be very clear: this is legislation to make it easier to put the Army onto the streets in Australia and potentially use lethal force against Australian citizens. That's what we are debating here today, and it is not good enough. It's not good enough for the government to come in here and say, 'We're only going to do this in circumstances of domestic violence,' and then not define that term in the legislation. You can put all the fluffy words you like in the explanatory memoranda, but the absolute safety net that the Australian people need is to have the term 'domestic violence' defined in this legislation so that the Australian people can understand in what circumstances ministers, including Minister Peter Dutton, will be able to call out the Army onto the streets in this country and potentially use lethal force against Australian citizens.