Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

What answers they were indeed today. I don't think I've ever seen—certainly not in the last few weeks—government ministers look so profoundly uncomfortable as they did responding to questions from the coalition about this issue. It is an issue that they clearly do not want to talk about. The inconsistencies in the answers that were given in this chamber and in the other, by both the Prime Minister and Minister Gallagher, and in the answers now by New South Wales police are stark. It was absolutely extraordinary to hear that the New South Wales police are now saying that they are working with the federal government, with federal agencies, to bring home ISIS associates from Syria. It is a concern that their security agencies are gearing up to bring home ISIS associates from Syria.

Can I remind those of you in the chamber exactly who these people are. We're not talking about refugees. We're not talking about people who have been taken hostage. We're not talking about people who have been dragged away kicking and screaming by a terrorist organisation. These are people who have voluntarily, willingly and with enthusiasm gone to join a terrorist organisation overseas to fight against our interests. This is an organisation that we have listed as a terrorist organisation. That has been done entirely intentionally.

Let me remind you of just some of the awful atrocities that have been committed by ISIS. They include things like the 2015 Paris terror attacks, the 2016 bombing in Brussels, the truck in Nice running over innocent pedestrians as they went about their business in 2016 and the Crocus City Hall attack in Russia in 2024. ISIS is a very well funded, well-organised organisation that has committed genocides of Yazidis, Shia Muslims and Christians. They have publicly distributed videos of beheadings of soldiers, journalists and aid workers. They've destroyed cultural sites and brought down a Russian passenger jet. This is one organisation, and these Australian citizens have actively gone over to join them in their fight. Now we hear that security agencies are gearing up to bring them home.

The government has said that they have nothing to do with this. That is an absolute nonsense. You could see Minister Watt squirming in his seat today. He would not answer the question as to whether this government has enabled the security agencies to provide travel documents and to provide birth certificates to the children of these Australian citizens that have gone to join a terrorist organisation of their own volition. Where are these people going to be resettled? Are they going to be next to your house? Are they going to be next to your kids' houses or your parents' houses? Where are they going to be? How can we be assured that they won't continue radicalising others? Let's remember that ASIO have told us that the terror threat has moved up just in the last 12 months alone from possible to probable. That we are now bringing people back into this country who have been radicalised and whose families have been embedded in this terrorist organisation, sometimes for years, but would now rather like to come home should be of concern to all of us.

Do you want to risk that for your families? I don't want to risk it for mine. Yet this is a government now that is not just enabling it but is hiding the truth from all of us. We've got very inconsistent answers. The NSW Police say one thing, the Prime Minister says another, and Senator Gallagher says another. We heard evidence last night that was contrary to all of it. This is extraordinary. What a cover-up. I remind you that there was a terrorist attack in New Orleans just over New Years. A man drove a truck into a crowd, and then he got out of that truck, and he killed policemen. He shot them down, and he shot down innocent bystanders. There were 14 people dead. He was radicalised by ISIS. These are the people that you are inviting back to our country. These are the people you are enabling. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just seen from that contribution the continuing efforts from the Liberal and National parties and their representatives to increase fear and alarm in our country. It was wholly rejected at the last election. People are sick and tired of the noise and the unnecessary anxiety that's introduced into Australian society by alarmist rhetoric of the kind that you've just seen here and the over-the-top dramatic responses to clear, concise and accurate answers from our ministers today to reassure the Australian people that our agencies that protect our country are doing their jobs for us.

As Australians we stand up, we salute our flag, and we honour veterans—veterans who fought for this country, served this country and underpin the democracy that we get to experience. It's valuable that we do that. We respect them. But what we've seen from those opposite today is a break with tradition, asking questions of detailed matters regarding national security in a way that is not only alarmist and fearmongering but dangerous to this nation. Of all the jobs we have in here in the parliament, the most important one for us as federal senators and members is the protection of our sovereignty, the confidence of our nation to be able to move freely and safely around in this great community that we call home. We are able to do that, despite attacks in a very volatile world from bots from agencies in other countries that want to undermine our harmony and that are doing everything they can to disrupt and to break the social contract toward peace for people here in Australia. Buying into that narrative of malign foreign actors is what we saw from the opposition here today. They're breeding fear and alarm, and there's something profoundly wrong at that.

What we saw in the questions that they're asking is them picking at the scabs of differences instead of declaring confidence in our security forces. Our security agencies are doing their job. They're doing it very quietly, very confidentially, very carefully. They are making assessments, by the moment, about our national security, and they're not coming in here and telling people on that side of the chamber and on the crossbenches every thought that they're ever having. In fact, they're giving very detailed, careful briefings to the people who the Australian people have elected—that is, to our leaders, who meet in a secure cabinet room to get confidential information and to enable the security agencies to do what they need to do.

What we do know is that, in Syria, the situation is becoming increasingly unstable, and our security agencies have been monitoring, and they continue to monitor, that situation, to ensure that they're prepared, as they always have to be, for anything that could happen in the world that affects our country. The Australian government is not providing assistance and is not repatriating individuals in Syrian IDP camps. The reporting otherwise is incorrect, and that has been amplified, profoundly irresponsibly, by an opposition that should know so much better than what we've seen on display here today.

Just last week—on evidence from ASIO, after serious and careful work—for the first time since the Second World War, this country, under the Albanese leadership, this Labor government, sent away the Iranian ambassador. And why did we do it? Because we wanted to send a very clear message: 'You cannot influence what happens in our country. If you do, we will reject you.' It sends a message to those who want to try and interfere in our country.

We should have confidence in all the agencies that do that work on our behalf—all 10 of them. I applaud the National Intelligence Community agencies: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service—all of them are doing a good job. That is— (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator O'Neill has revealed in her own actions, Labor has had a very uncomfortable day. Labor senators have had a very uncomfortable day. And what we saw from Senator Murray Watt from Queensland was a brevity in answering questions from coalition senators that is usually absent. And why was Senator Watt exercising brevity in responding to coalition senators' questions today? Because the government is exposed and the government is vulnerable.

Yesterday the Prime Minister told the parliament that reports that ISIS brides were being repatriated to Australia were 'not accurate'. Last night, instead, we learned that the acting chief of the New South Wales Police Force was working with federal counterparts to finalise operations relating to the return of Islamic State associates. The coalition in question time today asked the government to be clear and honest with the Australian people and confirm whether individuals associated or formerly associated with ISIS are in fact returning to Australia, or have returned to Australia in recent months—yes or no? We were curious to ask those questions at two o'clock today because earlier today Senator Gallagher, a very senior Labor senator, had confirmed in this Senate chamber that security agencies have been monitoring and continue to monitor a cohort of Australians in Syria. And so we wanted to know, quite rightly, more information about that, because this goes to the heart not just of our national security but the community of local communities across our country.

So why else would Labor be embarrassed today? Why else would Labor be uncomfortable today? Why would Labor senators be red-faced today? Because today we have learnt—splashed across our national newspapers, quite rightly—that the former Victorian Labor premier accepted an invitation and took himself off to Beijing with the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the authoritarian leader of North Korea and the President of Russia. There is silence from Labor senators. You can see it in their faces; they are embarrassed.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order with regard to impugning the motivations of a senator: the senator should withdraw. He should not take the silence, which is respect for the work of the Senate, as an acceptance of any of the falsehoods he's perpetrated in his speech. Anything personal should be immediately withdrawn.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think there was a personal reflection in what Senator Smith said. I will listen very carefully.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have taken advice on this.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to look at the statement from Senator Smith that indicated that silence was acceptance of his position and that we were shamed by that. Our silence is simply respect for the Senate, and it's been completely mischaracterised. I believe he should withdraw because of that.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take this under advisement. However, in my hearing of what Senator Smith said, I do not believe at this stage that he has breached standing orders. I will give Senator Smith the call but I will consider the matter, and, if appropriate, I will come back to you directly or via the President to the chamber. Point of order, Senator Polley?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like you to take that under advisement and to report back to the Senate. When you abide by the standing orders, that should not be taken as a reflection. I ask that he withdraw those comments.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already said I have taken the matter under advisement. That was an unnecessary point of order. I'd already taken advice from the Clerk on the issue that Senator O'Neill had raised. However, because it has been raised by Senator O'Neill I said I would take it under advisement.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those interjections demonstrate with great clarity the level of uncomfortableness that Labor senators experienced today. I'd like to applaud former Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith again asserts that Labor senators, who are appropriately seeking advice from you on the way the standing orders interact with the comments he is making—Senator Smith's comments just now suggest that that, again, in some way communicates a view about his speech. That is obviously not the case but it also seems to invoke the same problem that Senator O'Neill and Senator Polley have drawn your attention to.

The:

I will clarify the matter again with the clerks, but, honestly, in my hearing of what Senator Smith said, I do not believe he impugned anyone's motives. I will take further advice. I stand by my previous ruling.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I applaud the courage that's been demonstrated by former Queensland Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, former federal Labor member Michael Danby, former prominent Labor senator and minister Graham Richardson and former prominent New South Wales state Labor parliamentarian Michael Costa, who have all agreed that the decision by Dan Andrews, the former Labor premier of Victoria, to go to Beijing to participate in the celebrations for the 80th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II—and that is an interpretation that the Chinese Communist Party seeks to make over those events which is very, very wrong. Those Labor former premiers and federal parliamentarians have demonstrated great courage and, in fact, protected Australia's national interest by calling out the poor judgement that Mr Andrews has made in choosing to go to China.

We have to be very conscious that we are dealing with a significantly changed geopolitical environment. The most recent Defence strategic review document makes it very clear. It says that Australia's interests are now more challenging and that we are dealing with a competition with China that is being framed by an intense contest of narratives and values. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a situation today where, as usual, those on the opposition like to read certain newspapers to get the formation of their questions for question time in this place and the other place. It is irrelevant whether there is any truth or substance. They will still come in here and peddle the same nonsense that they did during the last term of government. They were rejected at the last election for that strategy, which is to divide Australia and cause anxiety and concern when it is unnecessary and without any substance. When you ask a question in this place and a minister gives you an answer, you may not get the answer that you want, because it may not fit in with your conspiracy theory. But a minister is bound to give you the information to the best of their knowledge, and that was repeatedly given by the ministers who responded to the opposition's questions.

We all know from the contribution that my good friend Senator O'Neill made previously in relation to Syria about the issues and concerns that we share along with many other countries. We know because our agencies, our intelligence and security agencies, monitor the situation, as agencies do globally. Their role is to keep us all safe. There is one job that they have, and that is to keep Australian citizens safe, and that's what they've been doing. I chair a committee that has oversight of the Australian Federal Police. I know the work that they do. I have confidence in every one of those agencies.

We showed some respect when Senator Smith made the surprising contribution that was just delivered. We sat in silence but we're not going to sit here and have people assert that we are ashamed of our ministers and of our intelligence agents that have given that advice to this government. We're not going to sit in silence, because what those opposite are doing is nothing less than what they were doing during the last term of government, and that is whipping up anxiety in the community, like the racist undertones from their former leader, Mr Dutton, in relation to his concerns about going out for dinner in Melbourne. We know how that worked out for the opposition.

We will always put the interests of Australian citizens first and foremost—every single time. All Australians have a right to feel safe and secure in their country, which is why the intelligence and security agencies constantly monitor any threat from any nation. We know, because we get reports on the sorts of activities that are going on, there's so much uncertainty globally. Quite rightly, that's why we're on alert. That's why the agencies are on alert. That's why people in this chamber and the other chamber have a responsibility to put Australians first, not to take political cheap shots, trying to make an issue where there is none. It is, frankly, very sad that elected members of the senior parliament in this country in the opposition would use such tactics when people are already afraid to watch the news. Young people have anxiety because of what's going on around the world. We need to instil confidence in our intelligence and security agencies and the AFP because they do their jobs each and every day to keep us safe. As we know with our local police forces lately, they put their lives on the line every single day. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we saw in question time today was a government that is just not being fair dinkum with the Australian people. We've seen it on a number of fronts in its first term and this week. We've seen the government proposing a truth tax which would penalise Australians who simply want to know what is going on here in Canberra. They are now going to have to pay extra fees to lodge freedom-of-information requests. We have seen this government ignore, time and time again, orders for the production of documents in this place. It is now almost a well-established fact that this government is the least transparent government in a generation.

Now here in question time very simple questions that were asked about the management of Australia's borders and the security of Australians were not answered. Not only were they not answered but the minister looked shifty, sounded shifty and acted shifty in his answers to these very simple questions. We know from public reporting and from other governments who seemingly are more transparent than this one that there is something going on here with the consideration of so-called ISIS brides, women that had voluntarily gone to associate with a terrorist organisation, one of the most vile terrorist organisations in modern times. We know now that there is something going on about potentially those people coming back to this country. We know that because the acting New South Wales chief of police told the New South Wales parliament that the police force of New South Wales was working with Commonwealth authorities about the potential relocation of these ISIS brides. It's good that the New South Wales government is being transparent with its people. It's good that the New South Wales government agencies are being upfront with the New South Wales parliament—as they should—and are letting their people know. It is just unbelievable that the federal government can't show the same level of transparency, especially given that they are the primary responsible body in this space. Obviously if anything happens it's good that local police forces are being engaged, but the decision-making here, the actual responsibility here, about bringing anybody back to this country in these circumstances lies with the Australian government.

My heart does go out to any children here that have been innocently captured in this terrible situation. We know from previous examples involving ISIS that sometimes there are completely innocent children that have either gone there with their parents or even been born in these other countries and raised in a terrible, shocking environment of violence, intimidation and oppression. I don't want to see any child punished for the sins of their parents. So obviously there has to be a degree of compassion in these cases. But that does not obviate the government's responsibility to first put the security of Australians at its paramount level. We have to be assured that the safety and security of Australians is taken care of first, and a competent government should be able to reasonably explain to the Australian people through their parliament what they are doing to ensure the safety and security of Australians.

There are a lot of questions here about how this cohort is being managed. The government continues to wrest back with what can only be described as weasel words, saying they are not giving any assistance to this cohort. But there is a lot that is maybe being done that is short of assistance that the government refuses to reveal. One of the major questions for me is, are Australian authorities able to go to the place—to Syria, or to somewhere close by—and actually interview and assess the risks of individual people outside Australia? That is a key question. Traditionally we have been able to do that. But there is a very dire security circumstance over there now, and some of the reporting suggests that the current plan is for people to come here, and then we'll do the assessment. I'm very worried about that, because I don't understand, then, if an unacceptable risk is found, what we could do about it, if they're already here. We've seen this many times with illegal boat arrivals as well.

I would just hope the government will be transparent. It would be against their practice, but it would be much better for the Australian people if you could just be upfront and fair dinkum with us all.

Question agreed to.