David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

Unlike, it appears, either the opposition or One Nation, in 2024 the Greens read the legislation that has come before the Senate. We read the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum, and we looked at the law. The proposed legal changes were clarifying the way in which the Criminal Code Act 1955 works and the definition of hors de combat, and they were clarifying it consistent with longstanding international legal practice. Having read the bill, having looked at what the international law provided and wanting to ensure that the original intent of these criminal law provisions met our international obligations, we voted for the legislation.

I find it remarkable that the opposition come in here and say they contracted all their thinking out to the Labor attorney-general. They didn't go through that onerous process of actually reading the law and looking at how the international legal framework applied. They didn't do any of that difficult stuff. They had a little chat with the former attorney-general and decided that was enough. That's how they legislate. How bloody remarkable!

That's seriously the basis upon which they're supporting One Nation's amendment. That's the basis on which One Nation are coming down. One Nation haven't even said why they're doing it. They haven't even explained it, but the coalition are coming in here and saying: 'Oh, look, we forgot to read it. We had a little chat with somebody from the government, they said something, and we didn't bother ourselves with reading it. That was too onerous and a bit tricky. We didn't phone up anybody and get any advice, we didn't look at international legal precedents, and we just did a tick and flick.' That can't seriously be what they're saying, can it?