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

I appreciate the contributions that have been made on this very serious issue despite the inaccuracies of most of what's been said by those who oppose this legislation. I think it's important to re-introduce into this debate some of the facts around what's been happening here and why the opposition was forced to bring in legislation to do what the government just won't in order to keep Australians safe. We have a lot of rhetoric, a lot of flourish and a lot of froth and bubble about certain elements of this debate, and it is a complex issue. But this completely ignores the realities that confront our country when it comes to safety and security.

To draw equivalence between the Iranian women's soccer team and this group of so-called ISIS brides—to suggest that the only difference was the fact that one was an elite footballer and the other was not—completely demonstrates the flimsiness of the approach taken by the Australian Greens political party to this issue. To suggest that this is somehow all about compassion and humanity and all about children, of course—these are minors who have not had a say over their lives but were taken to, or born in, this place otherwise described as a terrorist hotspot—to suggest that that's what the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 is about and that it undercuts the rights and privileges that should be afforded these children, completely misunderstands what this is about and why we are doing this.

It disappoints me, of course, that anyone who, in order to protect Australia, advances any piece of legislation or anything that might actually do just that is described as racist or race baiting. This has got nothing to do with race. This has got to do with intent and decisions made by people who have done something that is not in our national interest and therefore present a risk to our country. It's very straightforward.

Again, the government have sort of been indicating to Australia that they don't want this to happen, that they don't want these people to come back into Australia. In fact, the minister himself, in a TV interview on Insiderssome weeks ago now, said, 'We don't want them back.' If that is the case, then do something about it. In the same breath, as we recall, the minister said, 'Well, getting a passport is just the same as getting a Medicare card.' That's it; it's that straightforward.

Well, in fact, a passport is very different to a Medicare card. That is not a document that affords you to come and go from our country, to cross international borders. It has nothing to do with national security. As we know, under the passports act, the minister has the capacity to refuse to issue a passport to an individual on the basis of security concerns. Of course, all of that has been glossed over, and the government is saying, 'There's nothing we can do here,' but they will happily turn a blind eye while third parties, NGOs, work in the background, in the shadows, to try and facilitate the return of these individuals.

I will just say that, since we first debated this legislation, Dr Jamal Rifi, the chief campaigner for Minister Tony Burke—the man who makes decisions about who comes and goes from this country—has indicated that there are three plans on foot: plans A, B and C. Plan A, he suggested—it was directly quoted, attributed to him—would have a '90 per cent chance' of success. He's confident of getting these people back here. Goodness knows what conversations have occurred behind the scenes between the minister and Dr Rifi and the individuals concerned. We don't know. We may find out one day. We may find out when these individuals do come back. The reality is they are coming back.

The government say they want to protect Australia, say they don't want these people back here, say that they made terrible decisions to go, to support their ISIS fighter husbands and put their children in harm's way. Well, if all of the things they say are true, then they should be supporting this legislation. Or, indeed, if they can't, for whatever reason—make amendments to it. Do something. Give effect to the rhetoric you put out there about not wanting these people to come back to Australia. Of course, though, this is just a further demonstration of how this government is getting border security and debates related to national security completely wrong.

Indeed, I know just yesterday—the day before, rather—a number of members of parliament, including the minister himself, received communication from groups, including the Australian Federation for Ethnic and Religious Minorities in Bangladesh, relating to an individual who's doing a speaking tour of Australia, Mr Mizanur Rahman Azhari, who just yesterday commenced his tour, starting in Brisbane. It's known as 'A Legacy of Faith'—Brisbane last night, Melbourne on 3 April, Sydney on the 4th and Canberra on the 6th. It's right across Easter, an important part of our calendar for a range of reasons, including Christian reasons, in this country.

But Mr Azhari, this speaker here, who's been issued a visa by this government, has, sadly, in a number of other parts of the world, been accused of, and found to have been, spreading racial hatred. Indeed, his visa was revoked by the UK Home Office in the year 2021 while he was in transit, preventing entry into the country, because, as it was found, he was spreading anti-Hindu hatred. In his home country of Bangladesh, the government then accused him of promoting extremist ideologies and being sympathetic to extremist Islamist groups, and he had several of his Koranic explanation programs cancelled by authorities, citing law and order concerns. The police were instructed in that country to monitor the content of his gatherings because of the divisive nature and hatred that was spread through what he was doing. There are a range and a litany of examples of antisemitic hate speech, his maligning of the Hindu religion, his demonising of the Bengali culture. This man, of course, despite all of this—and all of it on public record too, I might add—has been granted a visa to come here.

This is the same government allowing a man like that to come into Australia and have talks like this. This is the same government that says: 'We've got no plan to repatriate these individuals to Australia'—the so-called ISIS brides—'but we're happy to allow it to happen. In fact, we've issued passports to the entire cohort.' Of course those questions remain as to who applied for the passports, who paid for the passports, who picked up the passports from the passport office, who carried them, if they were authorised under the Passports Act to carry them across international borders, if it was the one person or if it was multiple. Indeed, I would hope—and I hope they're listening—that the relevant authorities are asking these questions to see if any breaches have occurred. As I understand, of course, a passport becomes the property of the individual whose name is on the passport at the point of issuance, but there are questions here around breaches of the law which yet need to be answered. If the government don't follow these issues up, if the government don't support this legislation, it demonstrates they remain weak on this issue and they aren't interested in national security.

I commend the bill to the Senate.