Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Hume presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour;

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

The standing orders must be suspended to allow me to introduce a bill today, without delay, because this issue is urgent and must be resolved today. We must be clear-eyed about threats to this nation. Consider what we've seen in recent years. The day after Hamas gleefully tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered 1,200 citizens in Israel, a rally was held at Lakemba in Sydney. There, a crowd cheered a radical Islamic cleric, and he described the terrorist attack on Israel as a day of pride and a day of victory. The following night, a seething mob gathered on the steps of Sydney Opera House. They chanted: 'Where's the Jews? Eff the Jews!' They sought to strike fear into our Jewish community. It was one of the most odious events in our nation's history, an event where we didn't even recognise our own country. But it was an event where we did realise that something sinister had taken root in Australia.

In the aftermath of that sordid evening, there was an opportunity—an opportunity for strong political leadership grounded in moral clarity, an opportunity to stop the spread of antisemitism and an opportunity to come down hard on extremism. Instead, there was weak political leadership engulfed in a moral fog. What followed was the tolerance of even more intolerable antisemitic incidents: marches where genocidal slogans were chanted; encampments on university campuses; homes, cars and memorials graffitied and vandalised; extremist preachers spreading hate with impunity; synagogues firebombed. And then came the bloodshed on Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were gunned down by radical Islamists. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil in our history.

I say again: we must be clear-eyed about the threats to our nation. Our borders have been open to people who hate our way of life, people who don't want to change for Australia but who want Australia to change for them. Of course, those who seek to change Australia exist on a spectrum. There are some who would use violence and terrorism, as we saw on Bondi Beach. There are those who seek to incite violence, as we've seen with radical clerics. There are those who seek to import foreign hatreds, as we've seen in rallies where protesters chant 'globalise the intifada'. And there are those who, while rejecting violence, still reject Australian values. There are people who don't believe in equal rights for men and women, people who don't believe in the rule of law and want to establish parallel legal systems, people who don't believe in freedom of speech, association and religion.

We have to be clear: Islamist extremism has no place in this country, nor do other extremist ideologies that are weaponised for harm. The vast majority of Muslims in this country, be they migrants, confirmed citizens or Australian born, embrace our values and our way of life. They are not peddlers of political Islam, and that's all the more reason our nation must confront radical Islamism and political Islam, which are threats to us all—threats both imported and home grown, threats that will be amplified with the repatriation of the 34-strong ISIS bride cohort.

Let's be clear about these ISIS sympathisers or the ISIS brides, a label which conceals all manner of sins. These people chose to abandon Australia. They chose to travel to terrorist hot spots. They chose to support one of the world's most evil and barbaric death cults. They chose to steep their children in a monstrous ideology. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve condemnation, and they pose an unacceptable risk to Australia because of their terrorist sympathies. Their children, likewise, pose a risk to Australia because of the hate which has undoubtedly filled their minds. The 34-strong cohort, if they are allowed into Australia, would import hate and be incubators of hate. Their repatriation fails the values test, fails the security test, fails the fairness test and fails the pub test, yet repatriation appears to be proceeding.

The government has tried to shroud this process in secrecy, but we know a few things. We know DNA testing has been conducted. We know passports have been granted and citizenship applications have been processed. We know that just one temporary exclusion order has been issued, raising more questions than answers. The Home Affairs minister has power to issue more. He does not need to hide behind advice. He has chosen not to. This is a crucial part of the way this legislation is put together—he can issue temporary exclusion orders independent of intelligence advice. We know the Home Affairs minister has discussed repatriation with Save the Children and with his mate and political backer Dr Jamal Rifi, and we know the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales have been engaging with the Commonwealth for months on return and reintegration issues.

The Albanese government is not being upfront with Australians when it pretends to be at arm's length from these repatriations, but what is absolutely clear is that, under Labor, non-government third parties have been empowered to facilitate the re-entry of terrorist sympathisers. In other words, the government is outsourcing decisions that affect the security of all Australians. That loophole must be closed, and the coalition seeks to close this loophole with a Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

The proposed legislation that we bring before the parliament today has three clear objectives. First, it will end the freelancing of non-government third parties who seek to bring dangerous individuals into the country. It amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 and creates a new offence that would make it a crime to assist the entry into Australia of an individual who has been in a terrorist hot spot, who has links to a terrorist organisation or who has committed terror related offences. They are crucial pre-conditions. In this, the bill seeks to achieve a second objective, which is restoring ministerial accountability. Through our proposed legislation, any non-governmental third party that seeks to provide repatriation assistance must obtain written prior permission, and both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs must approve any non-government third-party repatriation assistance for individuals affiliated with a terrorist organisation. In other words, they must be accountable for the decision. That's how ministerial accountability should work. Such authorisations will ensure that ministers are responsible for significant national security decisions. We want the government to take back control over who comes into our country, instead of outsourcing control to third parties and turning a blind eye. The third objective is technical. Under section 1192 of the existing Criminal Code, it's a criminal offence to enter or remain in a declared terrorist area. This bill seeks to extend the sunset date of this provision from 7 September 2027 through to 7 September 2030.

Australians have had a gutful. They can see the country they love changing for the worse. The coalition's goal is clear: we want to shut the door on returning ISIS sympathisers. We want to shut the door on Islamist extremism. We want to shut the door on those who don't subscribe to Australian values and our core beliefs. The bill that the coalition has brought before the parliament is a test for the Prime Minister. Will he keep the door shut to protect our way of life? Will he shut the door to protect our way of life, or will he keep the door wide open because he cares so little for our way of life?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. A means by which we protect the way of life of everyday Australians is to seek greater national unity. Under this government, Australians' way of life has been under attack, not protected. Under this government, Australians themselves have been divided and not united. The more that Australia diversifies as a country, the more important a common set of values is to ensure that we have unity.

We know that Australians come from every part of the world. They bring with them their own histories, their own ethnicities, their own food, their own way of talking, their own way of walking and whatever else. The one thing that unites the Australian people today, and even more importantly moving forward, is a common set of values. Those values are values of freedom, of equality, of a fair go—Liberal values, which are Australian values. These are the values which have been under attack under the Albanese government. In many ways, people have suggested that values are embedded in a people's culture. There's only one thing that can shift the dial on culture. It's not a strategy. It's not kind words. It's leadership. History has proven such. Only leadership has the capacity to move the dial on culture.

What we have seen sorely lacking over the last almost four years now has been moral clarity in the leadership of this country. This is why we have seen, through the bill the coalition is putting forward, the coalition stepping up where the government has stepped back. It is why you hear from the Leader of the Opposition the importance of protecting Australians' way of life—because the Prime Minister is leaving Australians vulnerable and their way of life under attack.

This bill that we are proposing is also a direct response to the ISIS brides. This cohort of people, the adults of which, made a decision already. They chose violence over peace. They chose ISIS over Australia. They chose an extreme ideology over a common set of values which unite our country. And because this government claims to know nothing, do nothing, yet again, it's the opposition who takes the lead. What you see in this proposed legislation is the leadership that should be provided by this government.

As the Leader of the Opposition has already made crystal clear, the example of the ISIS brides sees the government outsource decision-making and actions. That is not leadership; it's an abdication of responsibility. It is a sad indication of the direction this country is going, as everyday Australians see their way of life eroded. It is a lack of leadership.

The responsible minister has said, on public record, that he has been actively doing nothing. Doing nothing is no excuse. That is not an example of leadership; it is an example of cowardice. It is why this bill deserves the support of the entire house—both chambers. Why? Because Australia is worth fighting for and because Australian values are worth fighting for. We need leadership in this country, not cowardice. There is nothing more important in this country than not only lifting people's standard of living but protecting their way of life. That is what the opposition is prioritising.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fortunately, the bill is not very long, so I've had a chance to be able to have a look at it. But I really hope, for his own sake, that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't read what he's tried to introduce. You'll see why if you go through what this bill is that he's now wanting us to interrupt the business of the day to be able to focus on.

Point 1 is the description of the people involved doesn't necessarily capture the cohort that has been debated publicly. Read the definition. Read what's there. It doesn't actually capture that cohort. What it does capture is this: the fighters, for example, who came in under their watch—fighters who were clearly guilty of a terrorism offence. We know that fighters did come in under their watch.

Who are the people that this bill would criminalise? Because they were people who came back with Australian passports under the previous government after having gone off—not women and children, but people who went off—to hold guns on behalf of ISIS. They're the ones who came in under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and under the Morrison government—fighters. This would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back. This would criminalise the baggage handlers.

Importantly, the main group wanting people to leave those camps has been our American allies. When they've made public requests to Australia—I know it's a long bow, so why is it in the act? Why is it in the bill? If you think it's ridiculous, why are you trying to legislate for it? The Leader of the Opposition right now is wanting parliament to debate legislation that will not deal with the cohort that we've been talking about. If you look at what happened under their watch when he was a member of the cabinet of Australia, he was very quiet when fighters came back. Did you ever complain about the fighters returning?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition is just going to pause.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people who came back, having gone there to fight—did you oppose any of that?

Then why didn't you apply? He says that's why the legislation was put in place. If that's the case, why were fighters still returning under the Morrison government? Senator Paterson might say they weren't, but I can tell you that fighters returned under the Morrison government as well. In fact, one of the fighters who returned under the Morrison government—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will pause. There are far too many interjections. People are interjecting outside of their seat. If you wish—hopefully, you don't wish—to interject, please return to your seat. It's highly disorderly. The people who aren't sitting in their seat, trust me: do not interject. That includes the Chief Opposition Whip. We've got to have a debate here, not a yelling match. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and he was given that courtesy. We're just going to moderate this a little bit more, okay?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson made the claim that no fighters returned under the Morrison government. Two fighters returned under the Morrison government. One of them returned after Scott Morrison had sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs. During that time we had two home affairs ministers, and apparently neither of them knew that the fighters were returning. Neither of them knew. That's what happened under their watch. But, at that time, there was not a peep from any of them—not a complaint, when fighters were returning under their watch.

But, if this law had been in place while they were being quiet about it, it would have criminalised anyone who, in the ordinary course of their work, did something that was viewed as 'assisting'. This would have criminalised anyone involved, such as our allies involved in trying to get people out of the camps, because it excuses someone if they're a Commonwealth officer but not if they're working as an ally for the United States. They're not excluded. So our allies would be criminalised by this. Anyone working at an airport who in any way facilitated would be criminalised through this. Anybody who worked on the flights themselves—because there is nothing more direct in assisting someone's passage than in fact flying them back—would be criminalised under what would have to be one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation that anyone has tried to introduce to the parliament. If anyone wondered what a silver foot in your mouth looks like, it looks like the legislation that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce to the parliament right now.

My suggestion for stage 1, when you decide to do a private member's bill when you're a leader of the opposition, is to pick something that you're passionate about. Secondly, pick something that you've read. I'm not sure what is more frightening on this one, when the Leader of the Opposition is wanting to introduce legislation that does none of the things that he's publicly said he wants to do and all of the things he's claiming he doesn't want to do. I'm not sure it's a bigger problem if he's done that inadvertently or if he knew and he did it anyway. But, by the bewildered look on his face, I think it's a fair bet—and we can probably always err on this side—that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have a clue. I think that's possibly where we're going to find the pattern of what we've already got: the person who came to office and knocked off their first woman leader on the basis that he could unify their party. On day one, two of his members crossed the floor in the Senate. That's the sort of unity he delivers on day one. Then he comes in here on day two and introduces legislation that does none of the things that he says it would do—absolutely none of it—and instead criminalises a whole lot of people who I don't think anyone in their right mind would say should be falling foul of the criminal law. I don't think that people who work in the aviation industry, doing their ordinary jobs, should somehow find—

Opposition members interjecting—

If you scoff at it, why did you put it in there? Clearly, those opposite don't think this should be in the bill, yet they have introduced that legislation. I still want one of them, at some point, to explain why they have the view they have now. When it comes to someone exercising rights which you can't cancel, in terms of the automatic rights of an Australian citizen, why is it that they are furious about it now but were so silent when fighters were returning? Why is it that, somehow, men who went there to kill don't trouble them? Why is it that, somehow, they have no problem with men coming back to Australia who went to join one of the most bloodthirsty organisations we've ever seen? What sort of compass is that? It's to the point that they want to pretend it didn't happen. It's to the point that Senator Paterson denies that anyone came under the Morrison government. It's to the point that Scott Morrison denies that anyone came under his watch. They didn't just come under his watch as Prime Minister; one of them came during the time that he had also sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs.

What is in front of us here does not match the actual impact that any of them have said they want to have. What is in front of us here does not do any of the things that they have said they want to do. What is in front of us here is clumsy legislation that doesn't do anything to stop people who you would not want in Australia but that does criminalise people who, from the reaction I hear, nobody thinks should be criminalised. Quite simply, there is a way to deal with it. If we all agree that the people I've described should not be criminalised—if we all agree that the aid workers shouldn't be criminalised, that the aviation workers shouldn't be criminalised and that our allies shouldn't be criminalised—there's a simple way to deal with it, and that's to vote no on this suspension motion.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.