Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The bill is poorly drafted and ill conceived and will have unintended consequences. It reeks of desperation from a new leader of the opposition who is chasing headlines, not solutions. The reality is that this bill does not seek to address the cohort of people that the opposition have been claiming to want to target. This is a political stunt. It's not a serious proposal from a serious party of government. The Australian people are seeing through the Liberals and Nationals and their lack of serious approaches to challenges the country faces.

The bill, as currently drafted, is absurdly broad in its scope. The number of people that could potentially be committing criminal offences in the circumstances contemplated in the bill would be significant, from commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers and members of the clergy to even our allies in the region. It is wildly inconsistent. For example, there is an inconsistent application of knowledge elements across the offences. For some limbs it is recklessness. For others it is actual knowledge. And, finally, it contains redundant provisions which refer to terrorism offences already covered by other sections of the bill. This entire bill is an absurd contribution from an opposition that has given up on good policy and retreated into the madness of right-wing populism. Ultimately, this bill would actually do very little to address the policy issue those opposite claim it would address—namely, the return of Australian citizens in Syria. The government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. If any one of these individuals finds their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. That is how we keep Australians safe, not through political stunts like this bill. On that basis, I strongly urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They're the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I'll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named 'ISIS brides' inspires this legislation. The term 'ISIS brides' is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to 'breed the cubs of the caliphate' and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they're Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we're supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they've committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That's what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It's called suicidal empathy. Let's quote one of Minister Burke's ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: 'Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.' That's charming—really charming. It's suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that's telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate?

As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, 'Islam will enter every home in Australia.' And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the cruelty that is on display from the coalition and One Nation in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 and the hypocrisy of the Labor government: the women and children who are left stranded in Syria, many of whom were trafficked and coerced as young women, as children themselves, have been left stranded now because of a total lack of courage and compassion. What a stark difference from the leadership of even somebody like Scott Morrison, who showed compassion to those who needed to come home after being left in the war-torn country. It beggars belief, that I'm standing here today to point out that Scott Morrison had more compassion and courage on the issue of human rights and protecting women and children than our current prime minister does! It just beggars belief.

Anthony Albanese said that these children made their own beds. Let me remind the Prime Minister that some of these children are four or five years old. Even if they were here in Australia they couldn't make their own beds. They are children. What has happened to our humanity? The stories of these women and their children over the past number of years—one of these mothers was 14 years old when she was trafficked to Syria, forced into marriage. The hypocrisy of the conservatives on this side of the chamber: they go on and on about extremism, about how extremists treat women, demean women, coerce women. And now, the very women they purport to care about they are leaving for dead, politicising them and using them as political footballs.

I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be lectured to with this false outrage of care, compassion or morality. You're a bunch of hypocrites—a bunch of misogynist hypocrites—and you don't give two damns about the rights of these children, innocent kids. One of the things that makes this country a great country and a place where we proudly, on the international stage, know it's the best country on Earth is the value of a fair go, of treating people equally, of looking after each other, of looking after our mates—but only when it suits you, it seems, on the conservative side. If there's a political point to be made or if there's somebody to punch down on in order to suck up to somebody else, the conservative side of politics just takes it; they can't help themselves.

The rank hypocrisy reeks in this place. It has all week. It has all fortnight, whether it's talking about wringing your hands about the impacts of what the war in the Middle East has meant for petrol prices while backing the slaughter and the bloody carelessness of your mate Donald Trump who started the damn thing or pretending that you care about Iranian women, when, for years, you have left them locked up, rotting in immigration detention—the very same women and young girls who fled this horrible, misogynistic, terrifying regime.

Now we see you doing exactly the same thing with the very women that you say should have been protected here in Australia by Australian law and by Australian values, children who were trafficked and coerced. Now you're leaving them for dead. My advice to those women and children in Syria: join a soccer team. Form a soccer team because maybe then the Prime Minister will care about you. Maybe then the Leader of the Opposition will think that you're good enough to come home. It is revolting—human rights for some, rule of law for some. But, if you're weak enough, you're vulnerable enough and you're able to be punched down upon without having anyone speak up for you, then you're fair game. If you're a young woman who's had a child in a refugee camp after being trafficked and coerced by a misogynistic regime, you're left for dead.

This is not who we are as Australians. These are innocent children, and you want to make political points and use the lives of these kids and these women for your own political pointscoring in a race to the bottom on racism and immigration in this country. And who's leading the charge on all of this? One Nation and Pauline Hanson, of course—the chief racist of all. Where is the courage to stare this rubbish down and say, 'This is not who we are'? Rather than doing that, we have you trotting along behind, hoping that no-one points out the hypocrisy, the inconsistencies and the inhumanity of it all.

This bill is only about rank politics. It's nothing about protecting Australians, because these women, these children, are Australians. They are Australians. They've got Australian passports. They were used and abused by the men who forced them to go to Syria, and it is now time that we allowed them to come home. These kids do not deserve to be part of your political games, so we'll be voting against this racist, rubbish piece of legislation. Using innocent children for your race-baiting is as low as you can get, and the whole thing should be knocked off.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is this bill be now read a second time.