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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Canning proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's plan to bring home ISIS sympathisers endangering Australia's community safety and social cohesion.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll firstly associate myself with your remarks at the end. Ayatollah Khamenei was an evil dictator. I don't mourn his death. I made remarks about this in the Federation Chamber on Monday morning, which I put on social media. He was a terrorist in breach of the United Nations nuclear program sanctions and a person who has for 37 years or thereabouts—for decades—oppressed his own people and been responsible for the murder of countless—hundreds of thousands, most likely, of his own citizens.

The Minister for Multicultural Affairs addressed the point you made regarding an election commitment in question time. She's put that on hold and is reviewing it. I can also share with the House that two days after we announced that commitment, there was a press release. The member for La Trobe's hand picked Liberal candidate turned up and announced double the money, but anyway we're reviewing it.

I do actually feel sorry for the opposition. I do.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do. The party of Menzies and Howard, the alternative government, the party that has been the government of this country for the most number of years since World War II, has been reduced to this. They could pick any topic to debate for this hour. They could pick the cost of living or the economy—we got through a whole question time and didn't hear about the cost of living or the economy. They could pick tax cuts—well, the government's tax cuts. They oppose them. They could pick industry policy. That's actually the portfolio of the shadow minister at the table, the member for Flinders. They could pick the first anniversary of their policy to ban working from home—we could talk about that for an hour! Instead, they bring on a debate founded on a giant lie. They choose this, a giant, steaming untruth.

During question time, as they just kept coming back to this well, up that end we were saying: 'Leave the poor dead horse alone. It's dead.' They are trying to convince Australians that there's some great conspiracy, that somehow the government plans to help repatriate people who chose to go to Syria with ISIS. It's simply not true. I will say it very slowly and clearly, so it might even get through to them. The government's position is clear and longstanding. The government is not providing assistance to these people to come back from Syria. The government is not repatriating these individuals from Syria. As you'd say to a child: 'Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Just because you say it over and over again, doesn't make it true.'

I'm not sure what's sillier, that the Leader of the Opposition chose to move a suspension of standing orders, disrupting the whole business of the parliament, to introduce a private member's bill that he clearly hadn't read, or that the shadow leader of the opposition over there is bringing on this debate founded on a mega falsehood. He has just been appointed—he's had a few appointments this term—I'm going to get the words right—the shadow minister for industry and sovereign capability. It may as well be 'sovereign citizens' as they might be the only people who believe this weird conspiracy theory.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this on a point of order?

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

Yes, it is a point of order on relevance. Just come back to the debate.

An honourable member: It's entirely relevant.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. I am ruling it not so. I have listened carefully, as I did with your speech, Member for Canning, to make sure that people are staying on the topic. I've heard a lot about the topic so far, so it can't be irrelevant.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's so focused on his portfolio that—and I never thought I'd say this—he should go back to making car fetish videos. At least it's relevant to your portfolio. But I will tell you—because you were looking this way, we were looking that way—clearly that was an audition, because you could see the calculation on the faces behind you. 'Is the current Leader of the Opposition going to last? Should we go with this bloke? Did we make a mistake? Should we go with this bloke? We'll see.'

Again, I'll say it in very small sentences. The government doesn't want these people back. The government is not providing assistance. The government takes advice from security agencies and, difficult as I know it may be for them to understand, we follow the law. If any of these individuals find their way back to Australia, the agencies are prepared. The agencies will act in the interests of community safety and within the law. The agencies never stop watching and collecting intelligence, as I know the shadow minister well knows because we've both served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, in previous times, we have been briefed on these issues.

As a matter of public record, but I will again say it here, the agencies assessed one of these people as meeting the threshold for temporary exclusion orders, and the Minister for Home Affairs acted immediately—the same approach that the former government took. These people should know that if they find their way back to Australia, they will face the full force of the law. If they've committed crimes, they will face the music. I feel very sorry for the children involved, deeply sorry, because their parents made dreadful choices, horrific choices. But the hypocrisy and the gaslighting from those opposite is staggering. It's exactly the same regime that operated under their government, the same laws, the same agencies. We trust the agencies to do their job. If they don't, they should just say so.

And let's be clear: under their government numerous people, dozens and dozens and dozens of people, returned in exactly the same circumstances, they were issued passports, but the difference is they included fighters. Men who had picked up guns and fought with ISIS were allowed to come back under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison regime. They were issued passports and they were allowed to come back—one of them after Scott Morrison was secretly sworn in as the minister for Home Affairs. They had two ministers for Home Affairs, but none of them seemed to know that these people were coming back. There were no complaints, no screaming, no shouting under their government. They asked to be repatriated; we said no. They took the government to court and lost and we still said no.

On passports, as you know, public servants follow the law. Let's get a couple of facts on the record about the truly bizarre private member's bill that was introduced earlier today. We sat through an hour and 20 minutes of question time and we didn't hear a single thing about the most important thing that the Leader of the Opposition thought should stop the parliament, which was his own private member's bill. They didn't ask a single question about it. It wasn't raised. It's very telling that there were no questions on their big bill, because who would the bill criminalise? When you actually read the text of this genius bill that the Leader of the Opposition introduced, it would not have actually criminalised the people who fought for ISIS with the guns. It wouldn't have criminalised the cohort that they're now saying must be stopped from coming back—the cohort that the government doesn't want to come back, the cohort that was welcomed back on the watch of those opposite in exactly the same circumstances. No, it would have criminalised the pilots—the Qantas pilots. I mean, that's a clever move. It would have criminalised the flight attendants serving water and coffee on the plane, doing their job. It would have criminalised the baggage handlers. It would have created a really weird legal conflict for the poor old Customs officials—do they follow this law and stamp the passport of an Australian citizen and let them through, as is the law, or do they follow that law saying that, if they do so, they'd be committing a criminal offence? Perhaps the weirdest bit is it would have criminalised the entire US government and all of our American allies, who've been the main people calling for these camps to be emptied and for foreign governments to take these people home when they're citizens of other countries. It really was a genius move!

The question then gets asked, and you have to reflect: was the Leader of the Opposition's introduction of the bill a mistake? Was he just a bit hasty? Or did he know and just didn't care? Incompetence or deliberate? It is a question for the opposition, a serious question. If someone exercises their rights as an Australian citizen—which those opposite well know can't be cancelled to some degree by the parliament or certainly by governments, and they know that because their own citizenship cancellation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court. They well know that the things that they've been out running around the community saying, and putting nonsense on social media for the last few weeks calling for, are unconstitutional. But if someone exercises their rights as Australian citizens—which can't be cancelled—why are they furious now but weren't when they were in government? That's what it boils down to.

ISIS are a vile, bloodthirsty organisation. Every single one of the despicable acts that the shadow minister read into the Hansard before, the government condemns and every decent Australian condemns. But what's really going on here is the unedifying three-way that the nation is now enduring from the three far right parties. I'll conclude on this: you can't out-Pauline Pauline. 'One Nation light' won't work. We just had a minute's silence for Senator Ron Boswell, and if anyone could have taught you that, surely, it would have been him.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Children aged between six and 10, standing with the severed heads of murdered humans, staring at a camera, smiling. When we talk about radicalisation occurring in terrorist hot spots under ISIS, that is the image that is seared into my mind, to say nothing of the atrocities that the member for Canning and deputy leader previously talked about, with the execution of journalists being livestreamed to the world. To see a human being locked in a cage and doused in fuel and set alight—these are the sorts of atrocities that occur under ISIS, and that is what these people who left Australia and went there knowingly signed up to support. It is a disgrace that they betrayed our country, our values and our way of life in that way. I don't want them back, the Liberal and National parties don't want them back, and we say the gate should be shut.

The door should be slammed shut by this government, who, curiously, keep saying that this somehow has nothing to do with them and that issuing passports is just an automatic process. The minister, Tony Burke, said that this was just like getting a Medicare card. But, curiously, the passports act—which he is the responsible minister for—includes express provisions that allow the government of the day to intervene on security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders can be issued. Indeed, eight were issued under the Morrison government—which you guys seem very keen to talk about today all of a sudden. Eight temporary exclusion orders were issued under that government. How many has this government issued? Do you know?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't know. I'll take interjections from you guys all day. The reality is that the government runs the country. You can't hide from the scrutiny, because the Prime Minister himself declared to the Australian people at the last election that he would be the Prime Minister that turned up, that took responsibility. He wouldn't duck and weave and hide. Instead, what have we got? We've got obfuscation. We've got secret meetings occurring in Sydney where the Minister for Home Affairs booted out the departmental representatives. Why would you do that? Why would you kick the public servants out if they're the ones that are responsible for administering these processes, as you keep saying? Then we find, many months later through Senate scrutiny, that there are handwritten notes referring to a 'TB', and no-one in the Public Service can possibly think who 'TB' might have been! It just so happens, of course, that the Minister for Home Affairs was sitting in a meeting with Save the Children and Dr Jamal, who later went to Syria with some 35 passports stuffed in his pocket. No, there was nothing to see here. There was no reason, absolutely no reason, this guy had to be booted out of the meeting! This is gold-standard transparency from the Albanese government, isn't it?

There are 18,000 individuals on the watchlist. We've got reports, after Bondi, that the AFP and security agencies are underresourced to deal with these sorts of radicalised individuals, but this lot want to allow more back into Australia. We say that the first job of government is to protect Australians and to keep them safe. We say that the gate should be shut. Every avenue should be pursued to keep Australians safe, and nothing should stand in the way of Australian national security. If there are deficiencies in the law in this country that leave our citizens unprotected or vulnerable, those loopholes should be closed.

That is why, earlier today, just hours ago in this chamber, we sought to move a private member's bill to do exactly that—to shut the gate and keep these people out of our country. Instead, the government used its numbers to shut down any debate on the issue. 'Move on; nothing to see here.' It's typical. They talk a big game, but when the rubber hits the road they are completely missing in action. It's why Australians today have a lesser standard of living and are less protected than they were under conservative governments. The assistant minister was quite right. We have been rewarded with more years in government since World War II than any other political party because we do believe the first job of government is to keep Australians safe.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing I want to say is that this is a really dishonest MPI. We heard first from the shadow minister and then from 'old mate', the member for Forrest—we'll be getting that one next time. The Albanese government's position on this issue is really clear and really longstanding, and it's disappointing that, as part of this political theatre, those opposite are pretending that no action has been taken by us—by the government—when the security agencies have provided clear advice. I'll flesh that out a bit for those listening to this debate. But, at the outset, I think it's important that we acknowledge that this is a point of debate that those opposite have put forward in the MPI that is quite dishonest and therefore unethical. It doesn't do justice to the faith in our security organisations that all members of this place should have, including the shadow minister, who, as Julian Hill, the member for Bruce, said, has been a member of the PJCIS.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. That's how we keep Australians safe. If any of these individuals find their own way to return to our shores, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. It's important that members of the public who are listening have that assurance. As the Minister for Home Affairs has continuously, repeatedly said, our agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and we have confidence, as the shadow minister should have confidence, as those opposite should have confidence, in our security agencies.

Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the exact same approach that they have for over a decade. That same approach was used by the former government. It was the approach that those opposite followed through their previous governments. So people in this cohort need to know that, if they have committed a crime and they return to Australia, they'll be met with the full force of the law. To those listening at home: have no fear; that will be the case. The full force of the law will be applied to anyone returning from overseas. A number of male foreign fighters, as the assistant minister pointed out, came back to Australia when the Liberal Party were last in government. The coalition built the legal framework that we are now operating under, and, at the time, they acknowledged that it goes as far as it can constitutionally. Maybe that's why we haven't seen anything of substance from them in their proposals.

As Minister Burke has said, one individual in this cohort has been issued a temporary exclusion order, which was made on advice from security agencies. But, during his contribution, the shadow minister pretended that a temporary exclusion order isn't happening—that the government isn't putting a temporary exclusion order in place. That's one of the many reasons why I say that this is a dishonest and an unethical debate that they've put into the parliament. When there are so many other things that that we are happy to talk about, those opposite put up what we in the Northern Territory would call a gammon, a pretend piece of private member's legislation that was full of holes. It was either deliberately dishonest or incompetent. I'm not sure which of those—probably both.

If our security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet the threshold, then temporary exclusion orders should be put in place, and of course we will do that because we follow their advice and we trust in them. And that's what those opposite should do, rather than this stupid political theatre that they're engaged in today. (Time expired)

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At a time when the country is still coming to terms with the murder of 15 innocents by terrorists inspired by ISIS, the news that the Albanese government has taken steps to assist the return of ISIS sympathisers into the country is frightening and it is infuriating. The Prime Minister and his Minister for Home Affairs say they have no choice; they cannot legally prevent Australian citizens from entering the country. But I cannot support that position. My electorate have overwhelmingly made clear to me that they do not support the government's position. They vehemently refute it and indeed consider that the Albanese government's surrender to these ISIS sympathisers constitutes a complete and utter betrayal.

These women, these ISIS brides, are not unwilling participants. They are not helpless actors coerced or forced into the situation. They were already radicalised when they travelled to Syria and Iraq during the height of Islamic State's territorial expansion to marry and raise the children of fighters for the caliphate. They made a very conscious decision to do so. They also, sadly and cruelly, made a choice for their children—many unborn at the time.

These women and children have been exposed to the very worst of Islamic extremism. They've been active participants and proponents of a doctrine that condones public beheadings, dismemberment and crucifixion, the stoning of women, the forced marriage of girls, the brutal murder of anyone that rejects their cruel and oppressive beliefs, the kidnapping and brainwashing of children to be child soldiers, the rape and sexual slavery of women and girls as weapons of war, torture—including burning and burying captives alive—and the organisation and orchestration of global terror against the West, including Australia. These people, these ideas, cannot be given residence in Australia.

Australia already has a grave Islamic extremism problem. If we didn't already know this, the Bondi terrorist attacks sure brought that reality home. We have, in this country, pockets where Islamic fundamentalism and extremism is staunchly propagated which the return of these ISIS sympathisers will only serve to embolden and escalate. Over this last week we've seen indisputable evidence that Islamic extremism has an outward presence in Australia, with Sydney and Melbourne mosques holding public memorials and prayer sessions to mourn the death of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an evil tyrant whose deeds and decrees were completely antithetical to Australian values.

These women and children are not going to come to Australia, make their home in a benign part of the country, deradicalise and miraculously reject their deeply ingrained illiberal ideology in favour of Australia's democratic values. They will settle in Australia's enclaves of Islamic extremism, be lauded as heroes and proclaimers of the caliphate, help radicalise an entire new generation and, no doubt, do all of this on the taxpayers' dime.

This cannot be accepted. We are this country's legislators. We have the power. We, if nothing else, are responsible for ensuring these evil people do not return to Australia. Australians expect this from us. I urge the Albanese government to defend and protect our country and support our legislation. Fight against the return of these ISIS sympathisers, rescind their citizenship, issue temporary exclusion orders and end the policy of self-managed returns of ISIS linked cohorts. Be transparent with Australians and put our national interest, safety and security first.

Australia is the greatest country in the world, but that greatness is dependent upon its people and the values we hold. The Albanese government, in enabling these ISIS sympathisers to return to Australia, threatens the very future of this country and its traditional standing as a beacon of hope, freedom and democracy and, instead, tilts it closer on a trajectory towards what we see on the streets of London and the rest of the UK. Australians are genuinely frightened about the future of this country—a country they love fiercely and loyally. If the Prime Minister shares even an ounce of that devotion for Australia's culture and people, he will not just talk but do—do everything in his power to ensure these ISIS sympathisers and their families are prevented from ever making their way into our home.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The premise of today's MPI is incorrect and can be addressed in a simple sentence: there is no plan in the terms suggested. The government has been repeatedly clear on this—repeatedly. There is no plan to bring home the cohort of people currently residing in the al-Roj camp in Syria, and whose recent attempt to leave Syria was blocked by Syrian authorities. There is no plan. The Albanese government's position on this issue has been consistent and longstanding and could not be clearer: no plan. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs have repeatedly said: 'We are not providing assistance. We are not repatriating individuals from Syria.' The Albanese Labor government's priority is keeping Australians safe. It doesn't politicise something as critical as national security and the safety and security of Australian citizens. Instead, the priority of this government is to facilitate the safety of Australian citizens. It is to follow the advice of our security agencies and it is, at all times, to conduct ourselves in accordance with the laws in force in this country.

In the ASIO annual threat assessment 2025, the Director-General of Security outlined ASIO's outlook to 2030, which assessed that, over the next five years, Australia's security environment will become more dynamic, more diverse and more degraded. We are facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent, cascading threats. The ASIO annual threat assessment 2025 also outlined that now, more than ever, information is needed to allow ASIO to anticipate, to look forward and to identify trends, individuals and patterns of behaviour.

Credible risk assessments and advice to government and other stakeholders can only be developed in respect of credible information from relevant sources. The role that ASIO plays in keeping Australia and Australians safe from national security threats cannot be underestimated, and there is a need for its powers to be adequate to support this function while, at the same time, responding to a changing security environment.

That is why, under this government, ASIO is as well funded as it has ever been, with increased powers of surveillance and questioning, courtesy of legislation introduced into parliament by this government. Australia's security environment is becoming more complex. We've seen recent instances of foreign interference on our shores, which, along with security threats from espionage and politically motivated violence, remain our principal security concerns. So it's important that ASIO's powers continue to evolve to enable them to respond in an increasingly volatile threat environment. Thanks to our legislation, ASIO is empowered to collect the information and intelligence it needs to anticipate Australia's need in this environment. Doing this is illustrative of the government's view that these expanded and new compulsory questioning powers now form an essential part of ASIO's information and collection powers.

As an Australian citizen living and working in this great country I want ASIO to be able to anticipate, to be able to properly advise government and other stakeholders and to be able to prepare accurate and thorough risk assessments so that dynamic and critical risks can be managed. I want to know that ASIO knows what's going on, what the threats to this country and its people might be and how best to counter them. And I want to know that, when this advice is received and provided to government, the government will act.

That is why, when advice was received regarding a temporary exclusion order in connection with one of those citizens seeking to return to Australia, the advice was acted on and implemented. I trust that advice. The government trusts that advice because it has properly equipped our intelligence organisations with the tools that they need to provide that accurate, timely and strategic advice. Under the law, Australian citizens cannot be prevented from returning to Australia unless a temporary exclusion order is in place. These are serious powers that can only be used where the legal threshold is met, and now one citizen has been subject to a temporary exclusion order. We received the advice and we acted on it. If our national security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet that threshold, we will act.

We want to talk about a plan. It's to continue to equip our intelligence agencies with the power they need to provide full and frank advice and to act on that advice for the betterment of Australians.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just heard from the member for Sturt, and in her contribution she indicated that, effectively, this government has no plan with respect to this cohort. If we're to take the opposition's position, or be as generous as we can for the opposition's position, it's one of indifference relative to this cohort.

Government members: You are the opposition!

The government, I should say. Well, hope springs eternal that it won't be long! But the point about that is that, if we're to take the government's position at its highest, it's one of indifference. My friend opposite said, 'What we should be doing is empowering the security agencies.' No. What we should be doing is directing the security agencies to go and get the evidence we require to deal with this cohort, to ensure that all members of this cohort are subject to an exclusion order.

Now, there's been a softening up of the Australian people regarding this cohort. There are references to brides and children, and—

Government members interjecting—

No. I'm not softening them up. Those opposite need to appreciate that these are ISIS sympathisers, and I think there's an opportunity to remind those opposite of ISIS's record of terror. Let's start. This is a barbaric terrorist death cult. This is a regime that's built on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes—the Yazidi genocide; mass killing of men; enslavement of women and girls; attempted eradication of the entire people; systematic sexual slavery; women and children treated as commodities, bought and sold under an organised slave market; public executions and beheadings used as propaganda to intimidate a population and recruit extremists; massacre of civilians in Iraq and Syria to consolidate control; the torture and killing of hostages, including foreign journalists and aid workers; and the indoctrination and weaponisation of children, training and arming and deploying minors for propaganda and violence. Who can forget the image of the young Australian boy holding the severed head of a victim or the other image of a child standing before a crucified body all as part of ISIS's campaign of propaganda?

Let's not soften the Australian people up for their return. We don't want to reintroduce that level of hate into this country. We do not want to see that, and those opposite have an opportunity. What they are right now is indifferent to the return of these ISIS sympathisers. On one hand, the Prime Minister says: 'You make your bed. You lie in it.' On the other hand, he's quite happy to say, 'I have no power to stop third parties doing these things.' This story has a long way to go yet, and the truth will reveal itself.

Those opposite have an opportunity—we're introducing legislation which will make it a criminal offence to assist people to return to this country. If you seek to support them, then you've committed a criminal offence. Join us. Let's agree to legislate that position because these individuals can never return to this country. If they do, Australians' safety and security will have been compromised. This is a 'whose side are you on' moment in this place.

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Enough yelling and shouting.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whose side are you on? My question to you is: who side are you on—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Sit down. Ministers at the table, this is completely unacceptable. I have been screamed at for five minutes from the despatch box for trying to overpower the interjections on this side. It is completely undignified. This is already a heated debate, and you are adding fuel. Let's try and bring down the temperature. You can make your point without having to yell. Members opposite, you can and will have your opportunities to debate against the arguments being put. That's the whole point of an MPI.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the member for Barker's speech proves one thing, and that's that there's been a softening up of the coalition's shadow frontbench. And, can I say, it's been softened up because national security is not a game. National security is not a space for political posturing. National security is not a space for political theatre. It's serious. And this is a government, on this side of the chamber, who takes it—as it should—seriously.

When it comes to this cohort, and, indeed, when it comes to all circumstances, this is a government that follows the advice of the security agencies, because we have confidence in those agencies. This is a government that follows the law, as we are required to do. This is a government that, because of those two things, keeps Australia and Australians safe every day. And this place, this institution and this country deserve better than what we have seen from the opposition today, because, if the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't have put forward the bill that they put forward earlier today, a bill that the member for Forrest said would shut the gate.

What do we find when that bill comes through? What do we find when we look at the fine print? We find that the bill would only shut the gate on pilots getting into the cockpit to fly a commercial air flight. We find that the bill would shut the gate on, and criminalise the work of, flight attendants pushing a trolley down the aisle. We find that the bill would criminalise, and shut the gate on, the work of baggage handlers loading suitcases onto the conveyor belt. And we find that the bill would shut the gate on people working in humanitarian aid in regions where people need the most help.

If the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't be ignoring the legal framework that the coalition itself created. They wouldn't be ignoring the Constitution. They wouldn't be changing the position that they followed and the approach that they followed when they were in government. Certainly, if the opposition cared about national security, they wouldn't be asking questions in question time about intelligence advice that they know very well is not to be made public.

I understand that the opposition has been in a shambles. I understand that they need to put on a show. I understand that this has been the fundamental reason behind their behaviour in this chamber and their fundamental lurch to the Right. But let's call this out for what it is. It is a desperate attempt to impersonate Pauline Hanson. It is a desperate grab for votes that they have lost because of their disunity, their dysfunction and the mess that's resulted from focusing only on themselves.

When the now Leader of the Opposition stood up, in his first address to the public, he said this:

We're in this position because we didn't stay true to our core values …

Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in his first days in this place, has not driven a traditional Liberal values based agenda. He has driven the agenda of One Nation. Not only does that not support a focus on national security; not only does that not support a focus on the Australian people; not only does that not focus on the core things that people in our community are raising, day in, day out, like the cost of living, like housing and like health care—what that means is that social cohesion and community safety go out the window for more cheap politicking.

Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria. National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. That is how we keep Australians safe. That is responsible government. If any of these individuals find their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. Our agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and we have confidence in our security agencies. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the same approach they have followed for over a decade—the same approach the former government followed. People in this cohort need to know that, if they have committed a crime and they return to Australia, they'll be met with the full force of the law.

A number of male foreign fighters came back to Australia when the Liberal Party were last in government. The coalition built the legal framework we are now operating under and at the time acknowledged it goes as far as it constitutionally can. Maybe that's why we haven't seen anything of substance from them on their proposals, particularly today. As Minister Burke has said, one individual in this cohort has been issued a temporary exclusion order, which was made on advice from security agencies. If our national security agencies provide advice that additional people in the cohort meet the threshold and should also be issued temporary exclusion orders, then of course the government would act on that, just as the government would act on any advice from national security agencies that a passport should be refused or cancelled. As always, the Albanese government will act on the advice of our security agencies to ensure the safety of Australians.

We know the safety situation in Syria remains extremely dangerous. DFAT warns of the continuing threat of armed conflict, air strikes, terrorism, arbitrary detention and kidnapping. Our travel advice to Australians remains the same today as it was in 2011: do not travel to Syria. That's advice that many of the individuals in this cohort unfortunately chose to ignore when they travelled to Syria. Of course, we have great sympathy for the children who are in this situation through no fault of their own. The decision made by their parents to go and support ISIS has had dreadful consequences for these children. The safety of Australians and the protection of Australia's national interests remain the Albanese government's overriding priority.

The bill that the opposition put forward today would potentially criminalise a whole bunch of people that nobody in their right mind would think should fall foul of criminal law. It wouldn't criminalise the fighters who came in under their watch, under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and then under the Morrison government. This bill would not apply to the cohort currently in Syria. But it would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back, it would criminalise the baggage handlers and it would criminalise our allies and any aid workers trying to get people out of the camps. This is lazy, shoddy legislation that doesn't do anything to stop the current cohort of people in Syria but that does criminalise other people who nobody thinks should be criminalised. It's theatre, and this government doesn't engage in theatre.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has now concluded.