Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister once said, 'My word is my bond.' But, on national security, Australians are seeing the opposite. Labor claims that it does not want ISIS brides—ISIS criminals, ISIS terrorists—and their children to return to Australia. Yet considerable assistance has clearly been given, including the issuing of passports. We're told that this government is not assisting, but federal and state agencies have reportedly been meeting for months to manage their return. Australians deserve clarity when it comes to national security, and they're not getting that clarity from this government. They deserve honesty, and they deserve to know whether terrorists are going to be moving in next door to their families.

Labor could not be more divided on this. The PM said that they're not welcome. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has issued passports. The Minister for Home Affairs says his hands are tied. Which is it? We know that the home affairs minister met with Save the Children before a previous cohort returned, and public servants were asked to leave the room. We know that a political supporter travelled to Syria carrying dozens of passports. No-one carries more than 30 passports into a conflict zone without significant coordination. And we now see footage emerge of the home affairs minister embracing that very individual leading third-party efforts to repatriate these terrorist sympathisers. Here lies the problem. These third parties are out there actively assisting in these individuals' repatriation to Australia, and the Prime Minister's doing absolutely nothing to stop them. Labor's policy of so-called 'self-managed returns' has created a very dangerous loophole. It allows these parties to organise, without direct Commonwealth authorisation, the return of individuals who entered a terrorist declared area, joined a listed organisation or committed a terrorist offence. That is reckless. We must protect our way of life.

Labor have an array of tools at their disposal to do this, yet they choose not to use them. The Australian Passports Act allows refusals on security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders also exist for precisely these circumstances, and the coalition has used these well in the past. Every lawful avenue should be pursued to delay or prevent return when national security is at risk. Labor say that they're powerless, but, if they truly oppose these returns, they could use existing powers robustly and work with us—with the coalition—to strengthen the law if necessary. We have said time and time again that we will work constructively on this. In fact, the coalition's keeping Australia safe bill closes current loopholes that allow third parties to repatriate terrorists.

Our bill requires the express permission of both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs before any assistance can be provided. Now, if ministers want these returns, they should sign their name to them. Our bill makes it an offence to assist the return of people associated with terrorist organisations without ministerial authorisation, because national security should never be outsourced to NGOs. These women chose to enter and remain in an ISIS declared area. Islamic State was not a social movement; it was a brutal terrorist regime. Security experts warn that radicalisation does not simply disappear. ASIO already has 18,000 individuals on its watchlist. Every additional high-risk returnee increases pressure on an already stretched agency.

Labor should not hide behind NGOs or bureaucratic ambiguity. Transparency strengthens democracy, and secrecy erodes it. Australians deserve to know who is making these decisions and why. Serious questions do remain about process and accountability. When was this self-managed returns policy adopted? Was it approved by the National Security Committee of cabinet? Were ASIO's full powers explored? Were temporary exclusion orders considered for the entire cohort? These are questions that we need answers for from this government. These are legitimate questions about national security governance, and the Australian people that we represent deserve answers, not even more evasions.

See this speech in context