Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I chair the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which conducted an inquiry into this bill, and I am pleased to say that the broad support of the Australian public was demonstrated in the submissions to the bill. The majority of submitters broadly supported the bill's objectives of streamlining call-out orders to the ADF in order to better protect the Australian population from acts of domestic violence, including terrorism.

Responding to the previous speaker, the definition that he was concerned about, which I might say he wasn't so concerned about in the dissenting report that the Greens made to this report—

Senator McKim interjecting—

No, you didn't mention it at all, Senator. But it includes domestic violence as 'conduct that is marked by great physical force and would include a terrorist attack or other mass-casualty incident'. That demonstrates how this would be interpreted.

Most of the submitters suggested, amongst other things, that the bill would better enable the ADF to apply its specialist skills and capabilities in responding to incidents of domestic violence, including terrorism. Submitters welcomed the clarity the bill would provide in relation to the use of lethal force; argued in support of the bill's provisions for expansion of the contingent call-out; and noted that the bill would enhance the ADF's ability to respond to incidents across multiple jurisdictions.

The bill makes it easier for states and territories to request the ADF's support by removing the threshold requirement that the states and territories are not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves or the Commonwealth interest against domestic violence. However, authorising ministers will need to take into account the nature of the violence and whether the ADF would be likely to enhance the state or territory response when deciding whether the ADF should be called out. The bill also provides certain other more technical provisions that do, in fact, make the whole powers given to the ADF more understandable. They clarify them and were welcomed by all responsible and relevant parties.

There was one concern the committee had, which was mentioned in the committee's report to parliament, and that was that the definition of 'specified circumstances' referred to in the bill was not clear. The committee recommended that the government give consideration to providing clear definitions of 'specified circumstances' in the legislation itself or in the explanatory memorandum for the purposes of making a call-out of the Australian Defence Force.

I'm pleased to say that this is a government which understands and appreciates the work Senate committees do. It understands the submissions made to Senate committees, which are fully assessed by Senate committees, and it responds accordingly. I'm delighted to see that the government has amended its bill to give a better definition of 'specified circumstances', as the majority of the committee requested and as, I think, Senator Polley referred to. I do note in passing that the Greens issued a half-page dissenting report, so I was quite interested to hear Senator McKim's 20-minute dissertation on why the Greens oppose this bill when all they could manage was three-quarters of a page in their dissenting report on the bill.

The Greens, I can't help but say, want parliamentary approval. Of course you don't call out the Army when there is an immediate crisis where Australian lives are at stake! What the Greens want is for us to say: 'Well, hang on. Could you hold the violence a little bit while we recall parliament. We'll get parliament in here. We'll sit down. We'll then have a lengthy debate, like this, and—'