Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am grateful to Senator Feeney for his response. So does that mean that the government is reading article 21's clause 3 of the convention in the context of allowing those sorts of activities? I am just trying to understand this. I am not an expert on treaties. I have the background of a suburban personal injuries lawyer and I am just trying to understand what this means because my reading of clause 3, by implication when you read it with the other parts of the convention and the preamble to the convention, is that what is being proposed in 72.41—the defence in the bill—is fundamentally inconsistent with the terms of the convention and indeed inconsistent with clause 3, which I think, from a statutory interpretation point of view, needs to be read in conjunction with the preamble and the principle aims and objectives of the convention.