Subjects: Delay of Labor’s detainee bill, migration law reforms.

CLARE O'NEIL: Okay. Thanks everyone for being here, and it's pretty disappointing circumstances that Andrew and I are addressing you today. We're very disappointed that the Liberals have decided to stymie our government's efforts to make sure that we have a better run, better managed migration system and to improve community safety.

We brought before the Parliament this week a bill which was absolutely in the national interest, a common sense bill that would have given the Immigration Minister powers that in my view he absolutely should already have. Those powers would have allowed us to make sure that we have a better managed, better run migration system, and it is part of our government's enduring efforts to clean up the very many messes that were left for us in our migration system here as a country.

Now instead of working with us, as one would expect parliamentarians to do, instead the Liberals have come forward and they've said no, they've said no again, and what we see is a consistent pattern emerging here where our government brings forward national interest propositions, and Peter Dutton, Dr No himself, comes forward and plays political games and stops us from doing things that are important for the welfare of our country.

Now it's very disappointing, and I want the Coalition to come forward and give us a clear explanation about what their policy issues are with the bill that was before the Parliament, because I've listened to them this week, and I haven't yet heard one.

What we've seen again, we have a government here trying to do something in the national interest, an Opposition that continues to play politics, and they need to account for that.

ANDREW GILES: Thanks very much, Clare. Peter Dutton always says no. Peter Dutton always plays politics, and Peter Dutton refuses to act in the national interest.

Peter Dutton and the Liberals could be voting to protect Australians today. They could be taking a big step in keeping the community safe. But instead they've chosen not to. Instead they've chosen once again to play politics. Again, as Minister O'Neil said, without providing any substantive reason.

The legislation, which they voted for in the House of Representatives, whilst also supporting arrangements that would have enabled the bill to pass the Parliament today, are arrangements that will keep Australians safe. They fill a big gap which existed in our migration system for over a decade by giving the Minister a power any Minister always should have had to enable people who have no right to remain in Australia to be removed from this country, to take those necessary steps for any orderly migration system.

As Minister O'Neil said, it's time for Peter Dutton to recognise what he has done, and to explain to the Australian people why he is not acting today to keep the community safe.

ANDREW CLENNELL: Minister O'Neil, on March 5, you - the Department started working on this legislation, on March 15, briefed journalists in terms of the problem here that you're attempting to solve. Why only bring in the Opposition at five minutes to midnight if you're fair dinkum about getting this bill up? Why not include them earlier in terms of discussions about these drastic changes that you're proposing and trying to rush through Parliament? 

CLARE O'NEILL: Well, Andrew, firstly, can I pick you up on that, the use of that inflammatory word, if you don't mind me saying. Let me just quickly explain the powers to you.

ANDREW CLENNELL: What's the inflammatory word, sorry?

CLARE O'NEIL: Just let me explain the powers to you, and then I'll come to your question about the politics of all this.

The bill that Minister Giles brought forward this week was a very common sense proposal, and that proposal would have assisted the Australian Government in dealing with a cohort of people who have exhausted every legal option to continue to stay in our country, they have lost every appeal, they have lost every court case, and yet as it stands today, the Australian Government does not have a power to compel those people to cooperate with us on their removal.

Now if I explain that proposition to any person on the street, they would be surprised that we don't have the power, and I believe endorse the Australian Government's attempt to get that power.

The reason that we need it is because we seek to run an orderly migration system in this country. We have come to office with the migration system in a categorical mess. Don't take it from me, take it with the numerous eminent Australians who have looked at this system and said that because of 10 years of wilful neglect we have a migration system which Dr Martin Parkinson said was fundamentally broken.

Now we are attempting to pursue the national interest, to protect the community and to give our government legislative powers that we need to help manage this system. The Opposition is standing in our way, and they need to account for that.

Now, the question over here is about the timing. I think you need to talk to the Opposition about what they would have done had they had more time. What I have seen with great disappointment is consistency in this debate where the Opposition, instead of supporting us, instead of being constructive, instead of working with us on these things, tries to play politics. And we saw that this week.

Don't forget that the Liberals came into the Parliament yesterday, voted for this bill, voted for a debate management solution which helped us debate the bill, and then suddenly had a change of heart overnight. And there's only one reason for that, and that is because they are playing politics and they're doing it with everything they have.

Excuse me, excuse me.

ANDREW GILES: [Indistinct] the divisions for the reps before we do anything else?

CLARE O'NEIL: Are we finished there? Okay. We're going to run an orderly press conference here. I'll come to Mark and then Paul.

JOURNALIST: Minister, can you spell out what the immediacy is here, and what's the implications of not passing this bill today? Because the way we see it, yes, the Opposition voted for it in the House of Representatives, and now the Senate's asking it to do its job, which is to scrutinise legislation.

ANDREW GILES: Well, as you just said, the Opposition recognised the urgency of the legislation yesterday in agreeing to the debate management which would have enabled the bill to be enacted today and to come into law tomorrow.

This is an area where the Opposition have continually pressed us on the need to act urgently to ensure the community is kept safe. They have an opportunity to do that just now, to put into the Migration Act a power that we believe always should have been there.

CLARE O'NEIL: Okay, Paul. Excuse me, Paul.

JOURNALIST: The plaintiffs in the High Court both argue there's no obligation to cooperate with deportation. This bill creates that obligation, and yet officials last night were not able to explain the connection between the bill and the ASF17 case.

So my question is, please, what is the connection; would this bill have improved the Commonwealth's prospects, and do you think that the Coalition has imperilled her chances in the case as a result?

CLARE O'NEIL: Okay. So, I'm not going to comment on High Court matters or about legal issues and implications. There is a matter literally before the High Court right now. It's not appropriate for any government minister, or indeed anyone in the Opposition, to be contemplating what may or may not happen in that case.

I just come back to the very simple proposition here, what we are talking about is a group of people who have exhausted every legal option, they have been found not to owe the protection of the Australian people, and yet they will not work with the Australian Government to manage their appropriate removal from our country.

Now, I'd say to you again, this is one of the most common-sense things that I have seen come before the Parliament. How can we have a situation where we have no legal power to compel people to work with us to remove them from the country when they have no right to be here?

Now, I would say to you, if you sat down with any Coalition MP they'd probably nod their heads and say, "That sounds very sensible". They did it yesterday when they voted for it in the House of Representatives, and yet they come into the Senate today and play politics again.

And I would just say once more, we have a government here trying to do something in the national interest, and an Opposition that chooses politics every day of the week, and it is destructive, and it needs to stop.

CLARE O'NEIL: Okay, I'm going to come to Clare, and then I'll come to you. Yep.

JOURNALIST: Minister, if this is a long-standing gap in the system why can't officials [indistinct] a brief inquiry or yourself where they actually give an answer to why this urgently needed to be passed? And are you misrepresenting the Coalition position here, because that answer couldn't be provided last night, and that's why they've asked for more time to scrutinise the bill [indistinct]? 

CLARE O'NEIL: Yeah. I mean I would just really ask you; do you really think they're doing this for a public policy reason, or do you think they're doing it for politics? 'Cause the answer's very obvious to me. The answer's very obvious to me.

It is important that we pass these laws efficiently. The Liberals understood that yesterday, today they wake up and they have a different view.

It is important that we pass these laws efficiently because that is the Parliament's job. It is a common sense proposition that we are asking the Parliament to agree with. The Liberals saw the common sense and they saw the need to do this efficiently yesterday, and they've come into the Parliament today and found that they have a different view.

And I'd say again ‑ and I would say again, this is about the national interest and the Opposition seeking simply to play politics and they should stop doing it.

JOURNALIST: Minister, you said it's the Parliament job, it's also the Senate job to scrutinise legislation. You've attacked the Coalition Government for laws that have been found unconstitutional saying they rushed them through. So again, following on from my colleague's questions, what's the rush that this has to be gone through today with no scrutiny from the Senate or only two hours of scrutiny last night from the [indistinct]? What powers will Mr Giles have that he will use in the next six weeks that he won't ‑ that he ‑ it will be too late to then exercise after the budget?

CLARE O'NEIL: Yep.

JOURNALIST: How many people will be deported?

CLARE O'NEIL: So these are really important powers. The common sense reason for them being put forward before the Parliament is bleedingly obvious to me, and it was bleedingly obvious to the Liberals yesterday when they actually agreed that these were powers that the Australian Government should get efficiently.

Now we are saying again to the Opposition it is important that the Australian Government has these powers. They have not found one single public policy reason to refute these laws and to delay the Government from doing something that I think in their heart of hearts they know that they should do.

We asked them to come into the Senate and do their jobs, pass this law so we can run a more efficient and effective migration system.

We've got one more question, I'm just [indistinct] here.

JOURNALIST: Minister, why did you give [indistinct] a dressing down to the point where she cried? 

JOURNALIST: Minister, to paraphrase what you just said there, you said it's bleedingly obvious why it should be passed, but also bleedingly obvious that this legislation has been brought about because you are facing a High Court challenge, or at least your Ministerial colleague there is facing a High Court challenge in ASF17. The timing is pretty obvious for everyone to see.

CLARE O'NEIL: Look, I think the ASF17 case does show that it is important that we have these powers. It's not the only reason why we're doing this though. It is very important that the Australian Government move towards running a more orderly migration system.

And I'd say to you again, whatever your political views might be, it is categorically a fact that we arrived in office with a migration system fundamentally broken. You saw a million unprocessed visas sitting in the queue, a system that wasn't working for business, that's not working for Australians, that's not working for the good of our country.

This is an incredibly important thing that the Australian Government does, that Peter Dutton drove this system into a ditch and then walked away. Now we are having to go through a methodical process of fixing each aspect of this system. 

The power to remove people from our country is important to running a functional migration system. We had a good law before the Parliament today and the Liberals have chosen to play politics instead of doing what's in the national interest.

We've got to go; we've got to run.