Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) 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 today.

There were a number of questions from the coalition to the government in relation to the ISIS brides: what the government did know; what the government did not know; what the government has done; and what the government has not done. But there was one in particular that I want to begin on, particularly in light of the need for us to find ways to focus on things that unite Australians rather than divide Australians. One of the questions to Senator Wong related to the government's reaction or response to the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Senator Wong answered, 'We don't mourn the passing of Iran's Supreme Leader.' I agree with that in totality. This was a regime that killed—murdered—thousands of its own people. This is a regime that sent forces or individuals to Australia to attack and kill Australians here in Australia. The Iranian government, under the directive of this so-called Supreme Leader, ordered attacks on synagogues, restaurants and childcare centres not in the Middle East but in Sydney and Melbourne. For anybody to stand here and defend that is entirely unacceptable. I'm grateful that the government and the opposition stand together on that.

I'm also concerned about the number of mosques in Australia that have held services to mourn the ayatollah's death, and statements like—I'll quote from the question from Senator Cash—'the pious scholar, the foremost martyr of the Islamic revolution, and the rightful deputy of the Iman of the age'. I reject that in its totality because somebody who is 'pious and rightful' doesn't seek the death of innocents. They don't send directives to countries like Australia, where we have a democratic rule of law, and seek the destruction of houses of worship, of commercial businesses or of the places where we care for our children. That is entirely unacceptable. We reject it in its totality.

When it comes to our questions around what the government did and didn't do, and does and doesn't know, in relation to the ISIS brides, Senator Wong answered a question from Senator Paterson saying that she can only speak to the actions of the Australian government and Australian officials, and that she wasn't able to answer questions in relation to Dr Rifi. I believe that the government does know more than it is telling us, and that is the basis of our questions today. We want to know, and the Australian public deserves to know, what promises were made to Dr Rifi before he left—before he went to assist the so-called ISIS brides and their return to Australia. I think we deserve to know that as a matter of course. We deserve to know that in the context of what has occurred in this country over the last couple of years, but particularly in relation to how it culminated on 14 December with the murder of 15 innocents at Bondi Beach. I think we are entitled to ask these questions, and we are entitled to have honest and clear answers to those questions. We didn't get those today.

The coalition will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to facilitate the re-entry of individuals linked to terrorist hotspots or terrorist organisations or those who have committed terror related offences—and rightly so. If you leave this country in order to facilitate terrorism, then you should be asked serious questions about why you should be allowed to return to this country. And we should be entitled to say, 'No, you've made your decision, and you cannot come back.'

Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the international community largely has been very clear, as has the Australian government, that the Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. We have, with the international community, called for the Iranian regime to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms for Iran's citizens. Instead, the regime instigated a brutal crackdown, killing thousands of its own citizens.

Therefore, we have indicated, as a government, that we support the United States and Israel in acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. Australia didn't participate in these strikes, but we are in contact with international partners, including in the region, and, most importantly, we want to see how it affects Australians. For Australians living or travelling abroad, we know the impact it's had. There have been much wider ramifications in the Middle East, including major airport hubs closed, transport offline and telecommunications disrupted. We're making sure consular support is there for those affected Australians to get home safely.

We also need to think about how we respond to the economic shock. We talk about our physical security both here and abroad, but the economic security is just as critical. People will be wondering: what are the implications of this Iranian conflict for our economy? Ukraine gives us a good template for that. We saw a huge oil price shock when the Russians invaded Ukraine, we saw shortages of fertiliser, and we saw shortages of food supplies, and that had a big implication for Australia's economy at the time. Rising gas prices pushed up inflation. We had global supply chain shocks, and our resilience was tested. But I think we came through that conflict stronger and more resilient. It's actually turned our attention to what we need to do to protect Australia, protect our living standards, build our sovereign capability and protect our supply chains.

Australia is a great trading nation, and we value a rules-based international trading system of free and fair trade. But we also need to be mindful that those trade links can be broken at times of conflict, which we're seeing become more and more prevalent. If we think about the trade that goes through the affected Strait of Hormuz, in the Middle East, 20 per cent of the world's oil passes through that strait. It undoubtedly will have an impact.

But what we can do is insulate ourselves, and this is what the Albanese Labor government has been doing. We are trying to rethink our industrial capacity and build more energy security by helping homes and businesses invest in clean forms of electricity that don't require exposure to gas and oil, and that will help protect ourselves from these international shocks. We don't control the international oil price or international gas prices; we're a price taker. But we can be resilient to the shocks and help underpin our industrial base. The Australian government will always be there to protect Australians' living standards through these shocks. We did it last time with energy bill relief, and we also provided three rounds of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. If you combine those tax cuts, the average value is about 2½ thousand dollars a year, forever and ongoing.

We're doing more work to strengthen Australian domestic gas supply to prioritise Australian gas for Australians. We're making that a priority. Again, we're building resilience to these international shocks. We've accelerated renewable energy investment to reduce exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets. Our Future Made in Australia agenda forms part of that response to these global structural shocks, supporting domestic manufacturing to clean energy, critical minerals and advanced industry. These are not just great economic measures to boost our jobs and economy; they're actually protecting us from these very severe international shocks that we're witnessing right now. Rather than being permanently exposed to global price volatility, we're securing Australia's industrial base so we can be both physically and economically secure in these times of volatility.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were three questions from the coalition: one on the topic of Iran and two in relation to the women and children who are currently in Syrian camps seeking to return. In relation to Iran, let us hope that the people of Iran reclaim their country as a result of this conflict. My thoughts and prayers are particularly with those ordinary citizens that are affected, not the instruments of the state. Also, as I have a long and abiding relationship with the people of the UAE, they are not far from my thoughts.

I might come to the Australians who are seeking to return. It presents a considerable ethical dilemma for this parliament and Australia—what to do with these women and children. On the one hand, we must respect the rule of law. There are many, particularly on my side of politics, who proclaim the rule of law at every opportunity. But that really means treating each individual case on its merits and not as a cohort. We must also be mindful of the children. I don't back away from the fact that they are in a conflict and they assisted a horrific ideology and supported it. But that does not excuse us, as Australians, for diminishing our own standards on how we address their return. I don't back away from the difficult ethics faced by the government and by the ministers who must exercise administrative discretions. But, as the minister, Senator Wong, indicated to the chamber, there are no legal instruments at the moment—I'm assuming this is based on the information that's been supplied to the government, and I'm obviously not privy to that—for an exercise of particular discretions, although one order has been given. Therefore, what do we do with these individuals?

I'm going to inject one concept that has not been spoken about, and that's mercy for the children. I think we need to reflect on how we address this problem. It's one thing for the government to say it has no legal authority and can only issue one order, but at some point, if this continues, we then need to change our legislative frameworks to address this problem of failed states and terrorist activity. Alternatively, if these people are going to be repatriated, we need to support them to reintegrate and to leave behind their commitment—if, indeed, they still have it—to terrorism and radical Islamism. I do not think it is weak or backing away from the protection of our own people to have some regard for these children, for they are the affected innocents from their parents' tragic attraction to a horrible ideology. I think it is incumbent upon us all in public life to sometimes leave behind the binary and confront, head on, a difficult and intractable dilemma.

If I can inject one thing into the debate, that is that each individual must account for their own sins. You cannot—or should not, under Australian law—be labelled as part of a group, except in particular circumstances, and children cannot be prosecuted.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ISIS and organisations like it are manifestations of evil in our world, and it is hard to capture in words the brutality of their violence and the grotesque ideology that underpins it. The victims of their violence come from all different creeds, but what they reflect in common is the savagery of these organisations. That's why Australia and our allies and friends around the world have worked and continue to work to destroy ISIS and organisations like it and to fight the scourge of terrorism where it rears its head.

I think Australians are rightly horrified by the idea that Australian citizens would travel overseas to join and fight with ISIS or to support those who have travelled to join and fight with ISIS. The women who've travelled with their husbands to join and fight with ISIS should be criticised—as they have been—and they should be punished according to law. But those words are important, because the rule of law is one of the assumptions upon which Australia's constitutional system is built. Former chief justice of Australia Murray Gleeson said this of the rule of law:

The importance of the rule of law lies partly in the power it denies to people and to governments, and in the discipline to which it subjects all authority. That denial, and that discipline, are conditions of the exercise of power, which in a democracy, comes from the community which all government serves.

That discipline and commitment to the rule of law are reflected in the Australian government's position. The Australian government has been clear it will not repatriate these individuals from Syria and that any Australian returning to Australia who has breached Australian law will be investigated and subject to the full force of that law and any punishments.

Importantly, we are committed as a priority to community safety. So, if any of this cohort find their way to return to Australia, Australia's security agencies are prepared and will be able to act to ensure community safety. I take Senator McLachlan's point that this must occur on an individual basis, and that is what the law requires. But our security agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and our security agencies have the skills and experience needed to keep our nation safe. Our law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and national security agencies are following the same approach they have for over a decade, the same approach the former government enforced when male foreign fighters themselves came back to Australia, and the same approach will be taken to their spouses. The minister addressed this in her answer today in that Australian citizens are entitled to apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, be issued an Australian passport, but a passport can be refused or cancelled on security grounds if a competent authority, such as an agency like ASIO, requests it. That's the key point: Australia's community safety comes first, and that's the basis on which these cases will be treated.

As the Prime Minister has observed, we do also have to have compassion for the children involved. Taking children into a war zone like this is a form of child abuse. It's horrific. But the others who've chosen to travel to that area in the circumstances in which they travelled have made decisions in life and ought to face those consequences. I also quote Minister Butler in relation to this issue:

We are not going to provide taxpayer resources to help these women come back to Australia. They took the decision, along with their husbands, their partners at the time, to leave this country and to travel to Syria and Iraq and support one of the most awful death cults we've seen in decades.

That said, the Australian government will act according to law. We will act with determination and resolve to ensure that the Australian community remains safe, and, with the laws that are currently in place, the government are following through on that commitment.

We've already heard from the minister today that a temporary exclusion order can be issued if there are reasonable grounds to suspect it will assist in security or in preventing a terrorist attack, and one has been issued in relation to this. If there are individuals who are able to return, then they will be investigated. If they've broken the law, they'll be punished. If it's necessary to issue an order to ensure community safety, that will be done as well. The safety of Australians and the protection of Australia's national interest remain the overriding priority of this government in relation to this issue and all others.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that we are taking note today of all answers given to coalition questions, but I think it's important to note, in passing, that it is now 20 past four on the first day of sitting and we seem to have spent most of the day in this chamber talking about things which I doubt are of particular interest to Australians in the mainstream. We started the day by talking about motions in support of the action in Iran. We then spent an hour debating a statement on the Closing the Gap situation. This chamber then spent what seemed like an eternity debating a censure motion in relation to a sitting senator, who made comments outside the chamber, and then passed that motion. Now, we've been talking about motions in relation to—whatever the last one was, it wasn't relevant anyway. At least we're now talking about something that does have some bearing on the Australian people, and that's this government's inaction when it comes to the issue of the returning of the ISIS brides.

I have said for a long period of time that the first and only or most important job for any government is to keep their citizens safe, to keep Australians safe, and to protect our way of life. That's not something we're seeing out of this government. I'm minded to cast my mind across the Pacific to the United States and wonder what lessons are learnt from the actions of, I would say, the strongest world leader currently in power anywhere in the world and indeed one of the most accomplished of the last 50 years, perhaps. I think it's an indictment on politics generally that we now have a billionaire real estate mogul who's famous for selling steaks and wine and skyscrapers that has basically outshone every single career politician in the United States and every foreign policy expert over the last 30 years. I think it is an indictment on the political system. I think we've seen that reflected here today. It proves that career politicians really aren't just ineffective; they're actually pretty useless, honestly. They're pretty useless. That's what we have seen through the actions of this president.

We're seeing it again now, of course, with the response to the ISIS brides—a lot of dithering, a lot of chin-scratching and a lot of scratching of the noodle. 'What are we going to do? There's an esoteric problem here. What are we going to do with this?' It's actually pretty simple. The coalition has intimated and said that it will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to facilitate the re-entry of individuals linked to terrorist hotspots and terrorist organisations who've committed terror-related offences overseas. Australians are sick and tired of being put second. That is not the motto, although it's the motto of this government over here—Australia second or last, or whatever it might be.

While the government spent a week dodging questions about the ISIS brides and playing the blame game, it's time for direct and positive action to be taken in the parliament to strengthen our laws and protect our Australian way of life. Ultimately, that should be the first position of any government. I think the Albanese government needs to come clean with the Australian people. We need more information about what they know about whether any of these ISIS-linked individuals are coming back. Are they coming back? What specific security assessments have been done or will be undertaken?

Remember, these are not just people who went to see the ruins of Palmyra or to taste the local food; these are people who went to Syria for the purposes of supporting the caliphate, supporting ISIS, which I would say is the most egregious terrorist outfit that has graced God's green Earth over the last 50 years or so. Australians expect that our borders and our communities are going to be protected from such individuals. That is the red line for most Australians. They're not interested in esoteric arguments about what this person did or what that person did—whatever it was, the job of this government is to keep Australians safe, and that is a job at which this government is failing badly.

Question agreed to.