Senator STOTT DESPOJA (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (6:37 PM) —Certainly the Australian Democrats have given leave to the government to bring on this extraordinary motion this evening. But, in relation to supporting the motion before us and the variance in sitting hours, we do not believe it is churlish to oppose it. We would like to have had more information, as I am sure is the case for everyone in the Senate, about the legislation that is being contemplated and indeed debated. The preference of the Australian Democrats is not to support this motion before us until we have a stronger argument and justification from the government as to why this needs to come on tonight.

I understand from the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that there is a draft bill available. I do not know if it is actually in circulation, but I do acknowledge that the Manager of Government Business made it clear that the government and, I think, the Prime Minister were going to attempt to contact my office and also other senators to outline the circumstances. I agree with Senator Hill that this is an unusual circumstance. It is indeed a very unusual process. That is why the Democrats would have preferred more information about the policy matter being debated, as well as about the process that was about to be pursued.

I am curious about and I ask the government whether this is in relation to legal and technical matters. Is this a case of retrospective justification for actions that we have seen over the past 48 hours in relation to the asylum seekers on the Norwegian vessel Tampa? Is this a case of retrospective legality that we are dealing with tonight? Is this legislation necessary tonight in order to do what Senator Hill has outlined, and that is to `protect our borders'? Forgive me, Mr Acting Deputy President, but that makes it sound a little like we are at war. I was not aware that our borders were in need of protection.

When the government refer to the need to reinstate some policy—or some legal provision, I presume—and reassert certain powers, I would have hoped that they would have made it a little clearer in their opening remarks what they were referring to. While this is an extraordinary and unusual situation, both in process and policy terms, that we are confronted with this evening, I would like a little more justification or information as to why it is so urgent that it must be done now. It may be the case that the government have to justify and need some legal protection for action that they either have undertaken today or are about to undertake, in which case I would appreciate that being made clear to the Senate.

The Australian Democrats recognise the numbers in this place. Senator Faulkner has indicated, on behalf of the opposition, that they will be supporting the motion before us. Like everyone else in this chamber, I am unaware of the position of the other non-government senators in this place—Senator Brown and Senator Harradine, presuming Senator Harradine has been contacted and is aware of the situation before us. But we are not aware of, and therefore cannot be convinced of, the need for urgency for the sitting times tonight and the possible introduction of a bill and passage of that bill through both houses tonight when we do not actually know specifically to what that legislation refers.

If there is a good case for urgency, we look forward to hearing about it from the government. Like Senator Faulkner, we in the Democrats also have internal processes, and I have not had an opportunity to talk with my colleagues. My colleagues are aware that we are having this debate only now and they are not aware of the policy content. So, if I can issue a request, a plea, to the government, it is that we have some argument, some justification and some policy specificity in relation to the need for this debate tonight.

I certainly hope that this is not policy making or legislation on the run. I certainly hope that it is not simply a belated attempt by this government to justify its actions of the past 24 to 48 hours. I certainly hope that it is not a political beat-up by the government in order to compound or increase support for actions that the Prime Minister has taken over the past 48 hours in relation to the asylum seeker issue, particularly in relation to the deployment of Defence personnel, in order to stop asylum seekers from entering Australia and being assessed and applying for asylum seeker status. And I certainly hope that this is not a knee-jerk political reaction that is policy making on the run.

I would like to hear from the government some justification as to the urgency for this debate now and for an extension in the sitting hours this evening. But, having said that, I recognise that Labor will be joining with the government to support the motion before us. I acknowledge Senator Brian Harradine, who is entering the Senate now. I will be curious to hear what he as an honourable senator and what Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens have to say on this matter, but certainly the Democrat preference is not to support the motion before us. I reject any notion put forward by the opposition leader in this place that it is churlish not to. I think it is an extraordinary and unusual debate, and I want to hear some justification from the government as to why we are dealing with and confronting such an extraordinary and unusual process.