Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

It's my pleasure to rise to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, which is an important piece of legislation given the context this country is currently operating in.

Indeed, with some of the public debate quite heated at times, I think it is important for us to perhaps look at these things in a factual, calm, cool and collected way, while not underestimating the problems we face when it comes to our immigration system, our national security and our arrangements when it comes to our borders. All of those things are important, but they are things this government doesn't seem to take too seriously. They say they do, but, of course, this is not about words; it's about actions. It's about laws. It's about application of the laws. It's about ensuring that the government is doing the right thing by the people of this country, protecting them and keeping this country safe, and, as we say on this side of the chamber, protecting our way of life. I think that is an important thing for Australians to hear from community leaders, as we understand that you love this country and that you want to keep this country safe and keep this country as the land of opportunity that it is, and it is these sorts of measures that will do exactly that.

This bill, which has been brought forward by the opposition, has been brought forward because the government aren't doing anything. They are not taking this issue seriously when it comes to matters related to, for example, the so-called ISIS brides cohort currently seeking to leave Syria to come to Australia. We only have to remember what ISIS is, what they've done and what they believe in to understand the risk associated with anyone who would make a choice to associate with an organisation of that nature. ISIS is a listed terrorist organisation. The things they espouse, believe, talk about and do are not things that we share as values for this country. They are not friends of Australia. They are not pro-freedom, they are not pro-democracy, and they are not obedient to the rule of law in this country. We are talking about a group of people who—by association or, indeed, direct activity—have subscribed to the views, values and approach to life that a group like Islamic State would take, which is abhorrent. It is something we need to protect Australia from.

Of course, this legislation is very straightforward, because all it does is create a criminal offence for third parties who seek to assist in the repatriation of individuals who have committed a terror related offence or similar offences—that is, individuals who are not the government who assist in the repatriation of someone who has been a member of a listed terror organisation, who has gone to an area declared under the Criminal Code and remained there or who has committed a terror related offence. These are three fairly high bars, three categories of criminal offence which, of course, mean that you are knowingly doing the wrong thing; you have intent to do the wrong thing.

This new offence this legislation seeks to create is in relation to aiding one of the people who has committed one of the aforementioned offences to come back to Australia, to provide support to someone who has actively chosen to be a member of a listed terrorist organisation and to travel to and remain in a declared area that is a terror hotspot—for example, parts of Syria as declared under the Criminal Code—or who has committed a terror related offence. Those crimes are straight up and down and very straightforward to establish. Again, they're criminal offences requiring intent. If you want to support one of those people to come back to Australia, there is something very, very wrong.

The Home Affairs minister made it very clear to Australians, in his language during a TV interview a couple of weeks ago with regard to the so-called ISIS brides, that we don't want them. He said, 'We don't want them here; we don't want them to come back.' Yet this government are allowing this to happen through their own policy settings. They are turning a blind eye and washing their hands of their responsibility to protect Australia, and they are allowing others to take charge of who comes into this country and the circumstances under which they come. Indeed, the minister I mentioned is the individual within government who determines who comes in and out of our country. This minister is in charge of the immigration system, of our border security and of our custom. This individual is the person who says, 'We don't want them.' Well, I say to the minister: do something. As we know, the minister has done nothing, and that is why the opposition has brought forward this legislation.

The penalty for assisting someone or facilitating the re-entry into Australia of these people—who've committed a terror related offence, who've gone to and remained in a declared area or who've been a member of a listed terrorist organisation—is maximum imprisonment of 10 years, bringing it into line with other terror related offences under the Criminal Code. There's consistency here. But it does send a message, and it's a message this government desperately needs to send—that is that we are in charge of our border protection system and immigration system, and we are in charge of who comes into this country. The government say, 'Well, we're not facilitating the return of the so-called ISIS brides and their cohort.' If that is the case, then do something to prevent them from returning. If the words of the minister are to be believed—that is, you don't want them here—here is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and prevent others from determining whether these individuals come back.

This is what people and the sector call 'self managed returns'. That is someone who is an Australian citizen and can somehow gain access to a passport and make their way back to Australia. They have self managed their return. As we know, with regard to the so-called ISIS brides cohort, there are individuals and organisations reportedly assisting with the return of these individuals. These women and their children have been living in the displaced peoples camp in Syria for up to nine years—terrible environments. We all accept that.

It's terrible that there are children subjected to the horrors of living in these places, but, sadly, some were taken there by their parents. Some were born there and have started their lives there. This is terrible, but this is part of the facts of the situation, and it cannot be ignored that anyone in these displaced peoples camps presents a risk to our country. Therefore, facilitating their return without any proper assessment or intelligence around what these people have been doing and saying and whether they, including the children, are radicalised—we don't have answers to these questions.

The government is turning away and pretending that they don't know what's going on when individuals or organisations are over there helping them get passports and helping them apply for citizenship by descent and those sorts of things. That is not is what a responsible government does. Of course, there are questions around what the government has done and whether all laws have been abided by when it comes to, for example, the passports act, on a tangential issue. There are 34 people in this so-called ISIS bride cohort, adults and children, the make-up of which we don't precisely know. We don't know whether any of these individuals have ever been cited by Australian government officials.

As I said before, we don't know what intelligence vetting and security vetting has taken place to understand who these people who are now in possession of passports are. In another interview, Minister Tony Burke said that obtaining a passport is just like obtaining a Medicare card. Well, it's not. Yes, there is a right for Australian citizens to obtain a passport, but, under section 14 of the Passport Act, there is also capacity for the minister to refuse to provide a passport on certain grounds, including those related to national security threats. Again, ISIS brides have chosen to go to a designated terror hotspot to support their ISIS-fighter husbands who may have participated in actions that can only be described as radical, anti-Australian and anti-Western.

I'm not sure anyone can safely say without proper assessment that these people don't present a security risk, yet every single member of this cohort and others received a passport. They have not set foot inside an embassy, a passport office or a consulate as far as I'm aware, so how did they get them? Who paid for them? Who applied for them? These are all things that we don't know. Again, the government saying that they're not helping these people to return and similarly, I expect, refusing to support our legislation means that they are supporting these individuals to return to Australia. They are bringing a risk to our national security and our way of life into this country.

It is as simple as the title of this legislation. It is about keeping Australia safe and having proper processes in place that the government control so that the government determines who comes, under what circumstances it is in our national interest and is right when it comes to dealing with the terrible events we are seeing unfold in the Middle East, and the risk that they present should they come to our shores. Again, back to the legalities of the handling of passports, something the government have turned a blind eye to, as part of the assistance and organisation relating to repatriation of people who have committed offences as outlined in this bill—who was it that applied for the passports? We don't know.

The passports act, similarly, under section 37, suggests that only the authorised representative or the applicant themselves can handle the passports and carry them across international borders. These individuals, of course, haven't left the displaced peoples camp properly in many a year, and, therefore, as I said before, haven't had an opportunity to procure, obtain and hold these passports, let alone sign the documentation that would enable them to receive them. We had reports that legal representatives were the ones who applied for and collected the passports. We also had public statements by a well-known campaigner and long-time friend of Minister Burke, Dr Jamal Rifi, that he was, in his own words, the 'courier boy' who took the passports to the Middle East. We've had further media reports that another individual carried the passports into the camps. So the question is: were all of these people authorised to carry the passports? Or are these individuals in breach of section 37 of the passports act 2005, again pointing to a situation where this government is turning a blind eye to the laws of the land that are there for good reason—there to protect Australians, there to ensure that our way of life, our national security, is preserved. That's what they're doing; they are turning a blind eye because it suits their debate.

Now, they've ended the government-run repatriations which have presented this situation. I'm pleased to say that I met with Save the Children representatives last week, who are baffled by the government's approach to this; they feel like they've been left high and dry by the government. This is an organisation that did have meetings with the minister, meetings that representatives of the department were asked to leave because the minister and others wanted to have a frank conversation around how to potentially get these people back to Australia—something the government now denies and says is not happening. But the facts point to a very, very different set of circumstances. The government is helping. The government is rendering assistance, and this is jeopardising our national security.

As I say, Save the Children—the organisation that has done many good works across the globe in supporting those in need and those who don't have the rights and capacities that we do in a country like this—feel like they've been left high and dry by a government who've abandoned government-run repatriations. Because the government won't make a decision about who comes into the country and the circumstances under which they should be able to enter, they've been left to run this—proof positive again that this government is turning a blind eye to its role when it comes to national security.

This legislation is not complex. It's not draconian. It is not unfair. It is legislation that, at its very heart, goes to the preservation and protection of our borders, of the integrity of our immigration system and of communities across the country who obviously have concerns about a porous system that is not well managed, which is what we have under this government. To aid and abet, to assist and organise the repatriation of individuals who have, as I said before, committed a terror related offence, a serious crime, and have gone to and remained in a declared area, a terror hotspot somewhere else in the world—it's a difficult task to undertake. To get there and remain in those circumstances or to have deliberately and willingly signed up to be members of a listed terror organisation—again, that takes deliberate action; that takes intent. To support, aid, abet, assist in the repatriation of, or organise the repatriation of, individuals who've done any of these things is worthy of a consistent offence under the Criminal Code—10 years of imprisonment.

Again, it is up to the government to protect us. It is up to the government to run our borders. It is up to the government to maintain integrity in our border security and immigration system. But, by voting against this, they are again washing their hands, turning a blind eye and demonstrating that they're not serious about this and they're happy for these people to come in.