Mr BEVIS (12:10 PM) —by leave—I thank the committee. I thank the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) for his response. I make just a brief comment. I understand the circumstances in which military equipment is required in national disasters. If there was, for example, to be a chemical or industrial accident, there may be some need for some military assets to be moved, although my understanding of the circumstances would be that it would mainly be some people. It would not be equipment intensive, which is the sort of thing we are talking about here with moving lots of things across the land.

In respect of the domestic violence situation and 41B(6)(g), I must say that, if there were to be some sort of terrorist or similar activity to which the minister referred, I would not have thought the response would be an armoured column moving down the road. There are obviously other responses that would be used if the defence forces were called upon. I must say I have great difficulty envisaging the circumstances in which this clause would be activated, even given the minister's answer. However, I do not propose to seek a division on the issue. It is a comparatively minor part of the bill and one which I hope we are not going to have to return to at any point in the future.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12.11 p.m. to 12.23 p.m.

Mr BEVIS —To conclude the comments that I was making prior to the division, whilst I cannot envisage a circumstance in which it would be necessary for substantial heavy equipment, of the sort that this bill refers to, to be transported around to deal with the types of contingencies mentioned by the minister, I nonetheless do not propose that we divide on it, on two bases that I would like to record. The first basis is the response provided by the minister, for which I thank him and which does clarify to some extent the government's expectations of the application of this clause.

The second basis is that, under a worst-case scenario, even were it to be used in a manner that those on this side of the House—and also, I suspect, many other Australians—would have difficulty with, this bill does not of itself produce that outcome. It would be heads of power elsewhere that would facilitate a government decision to use the military in those ways. Even in a worst-case scenario, this bill would simply facilitate the transportation of the equipment rather than the authorisation of its use. On that basis, together with the minister's answer, for which I thank him, the opposition will continue its bipartisan support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick) —If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.