Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

As the Prime Minister ended question time just then, he made light of our line of questioning today, suggesting that we should be focused on the economy. But there is nothing more important than ensuring the national security of the Australian people and protecting our way of life. Our freedom, security and prosperity should be our top priority. The Liberal and National parties will always put the Australian people first. The government should too.

But, under this Albanese Labor government, what we're actually seeing is the complete opposite. The Prime Minister is allowing self-managed returns to Australia for cohorts of ISIS sympathisers. These are women and children of men who went to the Middle East to fight for Islamic State, the world's most dangerous terrorist group this century. The coalition will not allow militant political Islam to grow in our communities. We care about our social cohesion, particularly after Bondi, and that's why we strongly oppose the return of ISIS sympathisers to Australia.

We only have to look back at the events on 14 December to see what happens when militant political Islam is allowed to fester in our communities, and the result was the cold blooded murder of 15 people at Bondi Beach in an ISIS inspired attack. One of the shooters was actually Australian. He was born here, raised here, schooled here and radicalised here. Despite the horrific attack on Australian soil three months ago, the Albanese government is still allowing the return of ISIS sympathisers to our shores. Instead of using their powers and working with us—as we're willing to do; we tried to introduce a private member's bill today that would prevent these people from returning to our shores—Labor are providing assistance for individuals with links to ISIS to return to Australia, and it's extraordinary. Labor is allowing ISIS sympathisers back into the Australian community, even after Bondi. If the average Australian understands the threat that ISIS poses, why can't those opposite? It's very, very clear. You don't have to be a parliamentarian to see the threat that they pose.

To remind the Australian public what ISIS were responsible for about 10 years ago, they were responsible for some of the worst atrocities committed in this century: rape, enslavement, torture and murder all across the Middle East and Africa. Religious and ethnic minorities all suffered under the yoke of ISIS, and ISIS stoned, beheaded and burnt alive their victims and put it on the internet—glorifying the murders of countless Assyrians, Chaldeans and Yazidis. We welcomed some Yazidis yesterday from the member for Riverina's community. Christians and Jews were also targeted by ISIS. In fact, there are some images that have stuck in our minds. In 2014, journalist James Foley was dragged into the desert and beheaded in broad daylight for all to see. In 2015, a Jordanian F-16 pilot was shot down. Muadh al-Kasasbeh was burnt alive. He was captured, put in a cage in an orange jumpsuit and doused in petrol, and then they lit him on fire in high definition and put it all over the internet. Why did they do this? ISIS wanted to recruit and intimidate. It wanted to provoke Western democracies like Australia. It wanted to outcompete al-Qaeda, and it wanted to win the hearts and minds of young men and women across the world.

That's why we saw so many people from the UK, France, the Philippines and Australia head all the way to Iraq and Syria and join the caliphate. Who can forget Jihadi John—complete with a British accent—who symbolised the international outreach of the caliphate? It was a reach that extended all the way to our shores. Why on earth is this government allowing the repatriation of people who threw in their lot with ISIS? People like to call them ISIS brides, but these are people who are deeply sympathetic to a very systemic system of beliefs that put violence at the very centre of their world view, and we've seen no evidence that these people have repudiated these beliefs. In fact, for all we know, they still hold them. So why would we want to welcome them back into our community and have them celebrated by certain parts of the Australian community? They chose to travel to Iraq and Syria, they chose to remain there, and I think it's right and proper that we go through a very orderly process. But our starting position is that, if you betray this country, you're not welcome back. It's as simple as that.

We are going to close the door on these people. I've made it very clear that we don't support the return of ISIS sympathisers to Australia. We know that radicalisation is still occurring, as we saw with the Bondi shooters. ASIO already has 18,000 people on its watchlist. That is very, very intensive work for an organisation that's already overstretched. Human surveillance and technical surveillance requires a lot of source development. It requires a lot of operational security. It requires a lot of people in the field keeping Australians safe, and that's just on the intelligence side. We've then got the law enforcement of our police, both federally and across our state jurisdictions. So why would we put additional pressure on already overstretched agencies? I think it's fair enough to ask questions about why the two Bondi shooters were able to slip the net of our police forces—New South Wales, the AFP and also ASIO—and I'm sure the royal commission will deal with that.

But let's turn to Labor. The Albanese government denies any role in the return of ISIS sympathisers despite mounting evidence of its assistance. Its fingerprints are all over it, and Labor is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. There are only two options for those opposite. Either the government is incompetent and it can't actually deal with these people or the government is lying. They're the two choices: incompetence or lying. Both are bad, and neither position engenders confidence in the Commonwealth government, which is exactly what they should be doing, given that security is the first priority of any Australian government.

The Minister for Home Affairs insists that the government is not helping ISIS sympathisers return to Australia. Yet, in September last year, Minister Burke secretly met with Save the Children before they brought six ISIS sympathisers back to Australia. If that wasn't enough, the home affairs minister's friend and political supporter Dr Jamal Rifi recently travelled to Syria with 35 passports for ISIS sympathisers seeking to return to Australia. This is a minister who couldn't come clean today in question time. We asked him directly, 'Have you or any of your officials assisted with the repatriation of these ISIS sympathisers with the issuing of passports?' and he said no. Well, I think Peter Jennings, a former public servant, put it best in the Australian newspaper some time ago. He said:

Here are five conclusions about the repatriation of the so-called jihadi brides and their children to Australia. First, despite its denials the government is deeply involved. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke leads the process, but several state and federal agencies must be involved.

That's point 1. Point 2 is:

… the Department of Home Affairs participated at senior levels in two meetings between …

the minister—

and Save the Children.

Point 3 is:

… reluctant or not, department officials are following the government's lead to deny the federal government's active engagement in repatriating the jihadis and their children.

Point 4 is:

… ministers and officials are failing in their obligation 'that there be the freest flow of information between the public sector and the parliament'.

Finally, point 5 is:

… this is another example of the Albanese government abusing public service processes to hide, control or limit information being made available to Australians.

It's very clear. Don't take it from me; that is the prevailing view out there about what is going on right here.

There are a couple of lies that Labor keep peddling. Labor have tried furiously to cover up and hide their tracks, but they're weaving their own web of lies. The first lie is the claim by the Prime Minister and the home affairs minister that Labor is forbidden under the law from preventing the return of ISIS sympathisers. But the truth is the minister, under a temporary exclusion order, can prevent the return of those people. It prevents a person over 14 from entering Australia for a specified period, which may be up to two years without security advice. That's lie No. 1.

We issued eight temporary exclusion orders between 2019 and 2022. That's a pretty good record compared to the one on the other side. The minister can do it. It's within his grasp and it's within his power as the minister. We just need to see his will to act. But what we're learning is that the Albanese government is passive in the face of events. It's passive when it comes to national security problems, it's passive when empowered to make decisions to protect the Australian people and it's passive in the face of ISIS sympathisers.

We're also seeing passivity elsewhere. Of course, we celebrated the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the weekend—a very evil person who has persecuted many, many people indeed. We were very troubled to discover in question time that last year $670,000 was committed to the TAHA Association in the member for Bruce's electorate. There was no press release. It was very hush-hush and very quiet. I'm not sure there was a lot of social media done about that one. Now we're discovering, in fact, that this same association is celebrating Ali Khamenei—not his death but the person and the regime and what he stood for. What he stood for is militant political Islam. That is what ISIS stands for, and that's why we are standing in here for the Australian people. We're closing the door on ISIS sympathisers, and we're calling on the Albanese government: do your duty and do the same.

See this speech in context