Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheets 1143, 1144 and 1148 together:

Sheet 1143

(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (after line 28), after subsection 123AA(2), insert:

(2A) Before making a direction under subsection (2), the Minister must:

(a) if the assistance is proposed to be provided in relation to a State or Territory, or State or Territory authority or agency—notify the State or Territory of the proposed direction and consult with the State or Territory about:

  (i) whether the State or Territory agrees to the proposed provision of assistance; and

  (ii) the form and manner in which the assistance is proposed to be provided; and

(b) take into account any views of the State or Territory provided under paragraph (a).

Sheet 1144

(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (lines 3 to 8), omit all the words from and including "any of the following" to the end of subsection 123AA(4), substitute "an APS employee or other employee of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority or agency".

Sheet 1148

(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (after line 21), at the end of section 123AA, add:

No use of force permitted

(9) A protected person must not use force against persons or things in relation to the provision of assistance mentioned in subsection (1).

These three amendments seek to do three crucial things: first, to ensure that there is appropriate consultation with the states and territories in relation to the call-out of reserve forces; second, to remove the immunities granted to foreign defence forces and foreign police forces in relation to civil and criminal liability; and, finally, to prescribe in the legislation that force and coercive power may not be used against civilians in the context of this legislation. We heard from Defence, the government and the ADF that personnel will not be permitted to use force under the arrangements that this legislation refers to. However, we have been told time and time again that if this is really the case then the legislation needs to explicitly say so. We do not think that it is sufficient merely to have this in the explanatory memorandum and we support the view of the submitters who stated that if it is the government's intention to ensure that use of force is not permitted then they should say so in the legislation. Once again, it's not a particularly radical contention that if the government intends force not to be used then there should be no harm in saying so in the legislation.

Finally, let me just circle back to a comment upon the granting of civil and criminal liability protection to foreign defence forces and foreign police. There have been contributions made to the discussion of this legislation which falsely lead those watching along at home to believe that the extension of civil and criminal liabilities to emergency personnel is the majority position in the states and territories. As we heard in the inquiry, this is not the case. The extension of criminal and civil liabilities is not the norm among the majority of state emergency services personnel in this country, so it is erroneous to suggest that one thing this legislation seeks to do is to offer the same protections that state emergency services personnel receive. It in fact grants protections well in excess of those granted to state emergency services personnel.

But let us leave that aside for a moment and stare blankly and clearly into the face of the reality that this legislation seeks to extend those civil and criminal liabilities to foreign police forces and foreign defence force personnel. That is a departure in extreme from any previous norm and, it must be said, will not be reciprocated, nor is it required to be reciprocated, by any foreign actor that we engage with in relation to our forces or our police forces in their jurisdiction. It exists as a totally new aberration upon the legislative field and is unacceptable in the extreme. It is a source of one of the most stringent streams of concern we have received, and that is why the Greens have put this amendment and its two partners to the chamber this evening.