Senator BARTLETT (11:16 AM) —The question that the Senate now is considering is whether the three migration bills be taken together. I will not debate the bills; I will simply debate the substance of the motion before us, as detailed under standing order 113(2). I will not be seeking to call a division on this. We do not want to unreasonably hold up the proceedings of the Senate, but we do want to draw attention to the questions that are being put before us and the issues and the importance of this process that we are going through. Given the unseemly—one might say, obscene—haste involved in this, I think it is necessary that as much opportunity as possible is given to the public, the media and those interested in these issues to be aware of not just the detail of the bills but the process that we are going through in relation to them.

The effect of the motion that has been moved by Senator Ian Campbell is to allow the questions for any of the several stages of the consideration and passage of the bills to be put together in one motion. It would allow consideration of the bills to occur together in the committee of the whole and for the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the bills. I do not have a problem with the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the bills—I can live with that—but, again, taking the bills together goes to a procedural issue. Again, it is a machinery motion, but machinery motions have practical consequences.

One of the practical consequences is that this will again potentially limit the opportunity for consideration of these bills because, even though these bills come as a package of measures, taken individually each bill is separate and distinct—particularly the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. You could argue that the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 are linked—and in that sense I could probably support these being dealt with together—but the border protection bill is clearly a distinct bill. There are distinct concerns raised about it. Indeed, it is specific and generic to court proceedings that may well still be current. I have seen reports that an appeal in the case dealing with the activities of the government in regard to the Tampa is still being considered and may well proceed to the High Court. So that is quite feasibly still before the courts or still part of court proceedings. The border protection bill goes to the very heart of that proceeding.

I think it is therefore important that the border protection bill be dealt with separately. There are very distinct and specific questions in relation to it and, indeed, about the order of priority for the package of bills. The Democrats believe that in regard to this bill, which basically seeks to overturn the proceedings that are currently before the courts and retrospectively validate any illegal action, we should see what the court proceedings produce. Unfortunately, the migration area has a sad history in our country. A lack of attention to proper legal principles and processes and an overturning of basic legal rights and civil rights are probably more prevalent in the migration area in our legislative history than in any other area, and that goes right back to 1901 and the introduction of the White Australia policy. We have seen 100 years of a range of quite shameful actions by the Australian parliament in the overturning and undermining of basic rights in the migration area. The border protection bill is another development in that sad history.

There was a bill—I cannot recall the name of it—passed by the larger parties in this place some time back that again sought to retrospectively overturn and invalidate a decision of the High Court in the migration area. I am fairly sure that related to a refugee matter—certainly, it was a migration matter. Again, I think that shows the dangers involved. I talked before, in the debate on the previous motion, about the fundamental underpinning of our system of government: the separation of powers. I think we have done some dangerous actions in the past in reducing the roles of the courts that are enshrined in our Constitution and the protection that they provide for Australian citizens as well as others.

The border protection bill is another bill that engages in that dangerous practice. It seeks to retrospectively validate actions which may well have been illegal and on which court proceedings are currently under way. The Democrats believe that bill should be considered separately. It should not just be squashed in together with other bills that deal with excising Christmas Island and other territories from our migration zone. It is a separate bill, with separate and very distinct characteristics and components. It has, as with the other two bills, been introduced only very recently, with absolutely no public consultation, and there has been virtually no opportunity for public consideration since these bills have been introduced. To try and rush all these bills through together simply reduces further the opportunity for consideration of the important matters that are contained in the bill.

As I stated before, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, through the Alert Digest, highlighted significant concerns about each of these three bills—separate concerns distinct to each bill, which of course we have not got any response to yet—not concerns about the package as a whole, with one bunch of questions. Senator Brown will move a motion, which we will consider later on, about referring these three bills to a committee. Again, as I indicated on the previous motion, if there were support from the opposition for even a brief consideration of these three bills by the public in a Senate committee, we would be less concerned about this motion that the bills be taken together.

But, given the obscene haste in relation to these bills in a matter as fundamental and crucial as those dealt with in these separate bills, allowing a machinery motion to go through that would expedite passage of these bills without the opportunity for complete consideration is something that we, the Democrats, would be concerned about. There are significant concerns and they should be properly examined. If a committee had the opportunity to do that, then at least there may be some recognition of the validity of the bills being taken together.

I do not know if it is unprecedented to try and oppose bills being taken together. I would think that bills probably have been separated before where it is appropriate. Perhaps it is not common, but this is not common legislation, these are not common times and the sorts of things being attempted in these bills are not common. Extreme circumstances require extreme vigilance on the part of the Senate, particularly in an atmosphere of concern, uncertainty and apprehension. This is precisely the time when bodies such as the Senate should take a calm, considered view of legislation and should not just allow itself to be caught up in the torrent of fevered apprehension, some of which has been quite deliberately whipped up and exacerbated by this government in relation to these issues. It is a crucial issue and that is why we believe that these bills should not be taken together.

I add a further point that is not just in relation to legal principles and process: let us not forget that these bills deal with life and death issues. That might sound dramatic, but it is absolutely the case. These are life and death issues. You cannot get a more serious issue than that and there cannot be a more serious responsibility for a body like the Senate than dealing with life and death issues. They are much more important, I would argue, than even all those niceties about civil liberties, legal rights, the underpinnings of our rule of law and fabric of the Constitution—although they are all pretty important too! Life and death stuff, I think, is pretty significant: we have had a lot of death that people have had to deal with in recent times and it is not much fun. It is very disturbing for people. Plenty more of that could potentially occur and we, in relation to issues like this, should make sure that we absolutely uphold our responsibility to examine those things properly in a calm and considered way—and it is sometimes hard to stay calm when you are dealing with life and death issues—and that is something that would best be met by considering these bills separately. That is why we oppose this motion.