Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Duniam, as shown at item No. 15 on today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for clarity and accountability regarding the Government's dangerous approach to the management of ISIS brides and their children, particularly in light of misleading public statements and the ill-advised adoption of a policy of self-managed returns.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is really a very important issue, and I'm pleased that I'm in the Senate to be able to make this contribution at this hour, despite the day that it has been. It is important to deal with this issue, and it's one we've been asking a lot of questions about but receiving no answers whatsoever from the government, who are doing the whole nothing-to-see-here trick about this very important matter that goes to the heart of national security and the heart of the integrity of our immigration and border protection system in this country.

The urgency motion that I have moved with the support of my colleagues is as follows:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for clarity and accountability regarding the Government's dangerous approach to the management of ISIS brides and their children, particularly in light of misleading public statements and the ill-advised adoption of a policy of self-managed returns.

Can I say that this is the big problem with the government's approach to these matters, the 'it's not our problem' approach. The fact is that they say that citizens have a right to a passport but then, by the same token, no measures are put in place to protect our country from any risk that may occur or appear on the part of an individual who's been to a declared area. For those listening at home, a declared area is a terrorist hotspot. Syria is a declared area, to which these so-called ISIS brides travelled. The fact that there is this hands-off approach to the security risk that these individuals may pose to our country is the problem.

This is why we have called on the government to not only answer questions—and we'll come to those a bit later on in my contribution—but also to adopt the legislation that we have proposed, which is to close the loophole around self-managed returns. Of course, there have been repatriations undertaken by governments of both colours, both the coalition when in government and the Labor Party in government. In 2019, we repatriated, as a coalition government, a group of orphans from this very area. It was a process that went through all of the appropriate intelligence processes. Security assessments were undertaken, and decisions were made based on full advice and information available to those authorities that provide government advice.

In 2022, similarly, the government repatriated adults and some children of this cohort to Australia. That was a decision by government. Now we have a situation where the government are saying, 'No, we're not going to assist, but we're happy for others to do so—for private individuals to repatriate people from a part of the world'—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired. I put the question. There being a division required, that will be deferred until a future date.