Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6:06 PM) —I think that Senator Brown there has used some silly arguments in support of his case. I think it does his case no benefit to use those sorts of arguments. I have no idea what the motivation of people going to grand prix might be. I have not been to one of the Australian grand prix. I must say I do not think I have had been invited—I may have been, but I do not recall ever being invited. But that is neither here nor there. I do not think people go along to those sorts of sporting events to see death and injury. I am sure that is not the case. I think Senator Brown is being very unfair to a very great number of Australians—tens of thousands of Australians—who enjoy motor sport as a recreational activity.

But having said that—because I do not really think that is central to the matters under discussion with this legislation—I make the point to the committee that the opposition will support this legislation if, and only if, it is amended in such a way that we believe it improves the current situation, the status quo. That is the test for the opposition, that is the ruler we are going to run over this legislation and that is the reason we have been so serious in moving amendments to this legislation. I reject the comments that have been made about the approach of the opposition, which I think is not only defensible but very principled and proper.

The problem with the amendments before the chair at the moment is that they reduce the benchmark for call-out. That is a very good reason why they should not be supported, and a very good reason why they will not be supported by the opposition. I commend that approach to the committee. But be under no illusions. No-one should be under any illusions about our general approach—that is, we are dissatisfied and concerned about the current situation, about the capacity for call-out of the ADF willy-nilly. We want to put a proper legislative framework in place—but I stress `proper' and `appropriate' and `with safeguards'—to defend the principles that our party hold very dear. That is the spirit in which we come to this debate—in which we are participating in it and will continue to participate in it.

I believe that this is a self-defeating proposal from Senator Brown—self-defeating amendments. I do not want to engage in a long and drawn-out debate with Senator Brown. He is entitled to his view. I respect people in the chamber for holding views other than those the opposition holds. He is entitled to his view and he is entitled to put it. I am merely indicating that it is not shared by the opposition, because it will reduce the benchmark for call-out. All senators have to consider this question. Look at the amendments before the chair, look at this question of `peaceful protest' and consider whether that term is too vague when you attempt to use it to prescribe the involvement of defence forces in protest or civil disobedience. We think it is too vague. I am very concerned about it. I do not think it improves the bill; I think it weakens it dramatically. It will not be supported by the opposition for that reason.

I can say no more about that. I hope I have explained that position clearly to the committee—what the approach of the opposition has been within the general framework that I have laid down now on the very many occasions I have been on my feet during this committee stage of the debate. While I commend the approach of the opposition to the committee, I accept that others have different views. I just make the point that I think the opposition's motivation in this cannot be questioned. We want to improve the current situation. We want a legislative framework and protection in place and we will only support such a legislative framework if it gives greater protection to the civil liberties of ordinary Australians than does the current situation.