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

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Roberts, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations

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.

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

I move:

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

The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations

Australia is now hosting people who left our shores to fight for ISIS or other Islamic terrorist organisations against Australia and against our allies in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was overthrown in that war. Syria fell into the hands of Islamic group HTS, which recently reformed into a more moderate government. Guess what? They don't want these women. Syrian authorities are treating them as foreign nationals awaiting deportation. In early 2026, when a group of Australian ISIS combatants tried to leave the al-Roj refugee camp, Syrian officials briefly turned them back because they wanted explicit confirmation that Australia would accept them upon arrival. The new Syrian government is clearly smarter than this Albanese Labor government.

What offences did these women commit in travelling to an area designated as a zone of terrorist activity? Firstly, under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, it's an offence for an Australian citizen to intentionally enter or remain in an area, specifically the al-Raqqa province in Syria. Simply being physically present within these ISIS controlled borders without an approved excuse is a crime carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Secondly, under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code, it's a criminal offence to intentionally join a listed terrorist organisation. The definition of membership extends beyond combatants to include individuals who swear allegiance, provide support or willingly integrate into the group's societal structure. The penalty is up to 10 years imprisonment.

Thirdly, enslavement offences under section 268.10 of the Criminal Code include the reduction of a person to a status of slavery, including purchasing, owning, using or trading human beings. The Australian Federal Police allege that some of these women were complicit in the purchase and domestic enslavement of captured Yazidi women. The penalty is up to 25 years imprisonment per charge, amongst the harshest penalties in Australian law, and rightly so.

While charges have been laid against two, One Nation is asking, 'Why not the others?' Home affairs minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have consistently claimed the government provided 'absolutely zero assistance' to bring these women back to Australia. This is not accurate. The evidence indicating that Minister Burke's office and federal departments helped or cleared paths for the women includes handwritten notes of Department of Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster revealing that Minister Burke held undisclosed meetings with the Save the Children fund, who were responsible for bringing these women back to Australia. During these discussions, Minister Burke reportedly thanked the advocacy group for keeping their repatriation plans quiet and out of the media. The minister explicitly noted that the government 'doesn't want to be perceived to have been paying to have them smuggled out'. Paying? The minister is referring to the $100 million that Save the Children has received in federal government funding in the last three years.

Minister Burke coordinated with Dr Jamal Rifi, a prominent Western Sydney Islamic community leader, who served as the key facilitator managing the ground logistics for their return to Australia. The federal government actively processed the legal paperwork required for international travel, which the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism described as being 'utterly disingenuous' to deny as being of assistance. Minister Burke conceded that the Department of Home Affairs assisted with passports, identity verification, DNA testing and citizenship documentation for the children born overseas. When the women applied for travel documents, the government chose not to implement long-term temporary exclusion orders, even though their circumstances perfectly met the criteria for that order.

The return of foreign Islamic fighters is not over. There are 13 men in captivity in Iraq who could be returned with the same assistance Minister Burke gave these women. Not on One Nation's watch. Australia needs protection from Islamic terrorism, and we need protection from politicians facilitating Islamic terrorists' return to Australia. This is why One Nation will tomorrow move to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, a bill the Greens call unconstitutional. What absolute rubbish! Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said One Nation's bill is structured to navigate constitutional hurdles, because our bill was carefully written to comply with High Court rulings on this topic, and we believe it is constitutional. Our bill strengthens Australia's ability to prevent the return to Australia of persons who have served with, participated in the activities of or materially supported terrorist organisations, to protect our Australian community. I ask the Senate to take this sensible measure to protect Australians from people who have actively fought in foreign lands against Australia and against our allies, to fulfil government's and parliament's primary role, to keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

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

I commend One Nation for bringing forward this urgency motion today, which does go to the very heart of the most important job any government has at any point in time in history, and that is to keep its people safe. Nothing makes it clearer than listening to Senator Roberts's speech or indeed observing the actions of this government, which paint a very clear picture, that this government is failing at that very task, of keeping Australians safe from those who seek to do harm.

At the centrepiece of the debate we're having right now—one we've been having for quite some time—is this government's decision to actively support the repatriation of ISIS brides back into this country. It doesn't matter when you say, 'We are providing no assistance;' the facts there are otherwise. This government provided passports to these individuals, when the Passports Act gives it capacity not to. That was an active decision by this government. This government assisted their passage to the airport. It shepherded them from the plane to their hotels. It bought them pizzas when they arrived in Australia to make them feel comfortable. If that is not providing support, then I do not know what that is. This government is running a concierge service for people who turn their backs on this country and everything we believe in.

And when it gets a bit tough for these people who supported that death cult, ISIS, when things are getting a bit hard for them where they chose to go, they want to come back here and take advantage of our rule of law, of our court system—something they hate. People who support Islamic State do not believe in Western democracies, do not believe in the legal system we abide by. So this government is actively facilitating the return of these people who do evil things. And if we think they've had a change of heart while they've been away, that they've suddenly seen the error of their ways and they want to come back and integrate into society then we are more silly as a country than we look. They didn't just change their minds and decide that perhaps being a law-abiding Australian citizen was what they always were. That hatred that they adopted when they went to support ISIS is still in their hearts, in their minds and, I fear, very much in their children's hearts as well. This government has not done what they should have done, and that is to protect the Australian people from the harm these people are going to import back into this country. At a time when we have a royal commission on foot talking about extremism, radicalisation, and how we can ensure that we can prevent that sort of thing from happening in our community, all the while, through our borders are coming people like this.

And what about that fellow that they found in the Iraqi prison, Doctor Jihad? 'I wasn't a militant. I wasn't a combatant.' He supported ISIS fighters. He healed their wounds. He sent them back out to cause and inflict the harm that ISIS fighters inflict, but no, this guy's an Australian citizen. We won't provide any assistance whatsoever. Well, I'm sorry, that just does not cut it. The facts bear out that you are providing assistance.

I had the pleasure and the honour of meeting members of the Yazidi community from Coffs Harbour, a visit organised by Mr Pat Conaghan, the local member for Cowper. I heard the most moving testimony of experiences that here in Australia we can't even begin to imagine. People were, because of their faith, persecuted in the worst of ways—rape, kidnapping, torture, separation of child from parent, brainwashing. The things that were told to me just half an hour ago by a group of people who now sit in the public gallery are things that should give this government pause for thought, and to consider what they are doing when they allow these people to come back into the country, facilitating their entry. These are people who came to Australia for safety, for sanctuary, for a place to feel included and to be able to live out their lives peacefully, and this government is bringing back the people who drove them—the Yazidi community—from where they were from, who vilified, victimised and pursued these people in the worst of ways just because of their faith. I can't even begin to imagine the experiences these individuals have gone through. Members of family are still not located, still separated from those who've been able to make it to Australia. And while we're not providing support to that community, who desperately, genuinely need help, who adore what this country has to offer, we are bending over backwards to bring in ISIS brides, ISIS doctors, and all sorts of evil back into this country. I say shame on this government. Put Australians and others who adore this country first.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The safety of Australians is vitally important and we should talk about it, but those opposite—the coalition and One Nation—are not entering this discussion in good faith. They are peddling this notion, this wrongful assertion, that this government somehow allowed these ISIS brides, who made a woeful, terrible decision to go overseas, to come in when they know full well that from day one the Prime Minister said that he would not lift a finger to help these people back. They know that. And he has been consistent in that position. In peddling this nonsense, they are actually distracting from the main game, and the main game in Australia when it comes to terrorism is actually youth radicalisation.

This was raised in a joint report by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US—the Five Eyes analysis—which was released in December 2024, titled, Young people and violent extremism:acall for collective action. ASIO stated in 2024 that around one in five of their priority counterterrorism cases involved young people. This is a sobering report. In every one of the terrorist attacks, disruptions or suspected terrorist incidents that they prosecuted in 2024, the alleged perpetrator was a young person—in every single instance.

What we are finding is that people are now being radicalised online. They're being radicalised fast. They have a mixed ideology, meaning religious, political, racist—you name it; it's all jumbled up there in this kind of politics of grievance and hate—and they are overwhelmingly young. This is what ASIO boss Mike Burgess said just in May this year:

I continue to be extremely concerned by the number of young people, particularly young men, who are being radicalised online and mobilising to violence relatively quickly with little to no warning … People who self-radicalise online … often show few … real-world indicators they are mobilising to violence.

In the past two years, since we strengthened counterterrorism legislation—which by the way, One Nation voted against—we have had 31 individuals who have been charged with violent extremist material offences, of whom three in five are aged 17 years or younger. Three in five are children. They are minors. As of 30 June this year, only a few weeks ago, 298 people were enrolled in counterterrorism interventions to deradicalise them. This was up 18 per cent on the year before, and the overwhelming majority—92 per cent—were men and boys. This is a problem of young people, and it is overwhelmingly a problem of boys and men.

The issue here is that once it reaches the purview of ASIO and the AFP—the Australian Federal Police—it's too late. So what the ASIO boss actually said was that we need a whole-of-society effort. We have to understand why it is that we are losing our boys and our children to terrorism. What is happening here is that kids are being exposed to violent extremist content. The algorithms bombard them with this stuff, and then, on top of that, they are falling prey to groomers—to terrorist adult groomers, sometimes from overseas, sometimes domestic, who are preying on their vulnerabilities, their need for acceptance, their need for friendship and their need for validation. These are vulnerable children.

So this is why we stood up, in May of this year, $74 million towards a new counterterrorism centre to bring together these agencies—the AFP and ASIO—to work with local and international law enforcement authorities to try and identify these networks and disrupt them and save our kids. This is also why we have brought in the social media ban. We don't talk about the dirty, dark secret of online extremism and radicalisation, but this is part of the reason this government has acted, and 20 countries have fallen like dominoes behind us, because we realise the threat of youth radicalisation. (Time expired)

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The first responsibility of any Australian government is simple keep: Australians safe. In that responsibility, the Albanese Labor government is failing and has failed because, when it comes to Australians who chose to travel overseas to join, fight for or support Islamic State, the Albanese Labor government has its priorities wrong. ISIS is a terrorist organisation responsible for murder, torture, rape, slavery, executions and acts of terror on an industrial scale. Its victims include innocent civilians: religious minorities, women and children, just to name a few. The people who travelled to its so-called caliphate knew the organisation they were associating with and the atrocities it carried out. They made a choice. They chose to leave Australia. They chose to associate with, support or fight for one of the most barbaric terrorist organisations the world has ever seen, and, when people make that choice, Australians have every right to expect their government to put the safety of the country first. Instead, the Albanese Labor government has supported the return of ISIS-linked individuals to Australia and chosen not to pursue stronger measures to prevent their return. Labor has washed its hands, as we have heard. They have washed their hands of responsibility, blamed everyone but themselves and left Australians to face the risks. Rather than pursuing every lawful avenue to stop ISIS-linked individuals returning to Australia, Labor throws up its hands, saying nothing can be done, leaving everyday Australians to live with the consequences of Labor's failures.

We know that Australians travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight with or support terrorist groups. We know that dozens of Australian men who went overseas to fight have already returned and we know that further ISIS-linked women and children have been repatriated from Syria. Every person who made the decision to travel to ISIS-controlled territories to associate with ISIS or to support its causes must be held accountable for the choices that they made. Every person who associated with ISIS and who is then released into the Australian community presents a national security risk that must be treated with the utmost seriousness—something this Labor government is failing to do. Australians should not be asked to accept the risk while the Albanese Labor government washes its hands of responsibility and blames everyone but itself.

Bondi should have been a warning to this country. It showed the deadly consequences of radicalisation taking hold in our communities and the terrible price that is paid when extremist ideology is not confronted early and decisively. Citizenship is not simply a one-way contract where Australia owes you an obligation regardless of what obligations you abandon yourself. If you leave this country, pledge allegiance to a terrorist organisation, fight for it or support its atrocities, you have betrayed Australia in one of the most fundamental ways imaginable.

One Nation believes Australians have the right to say to anyone who has made that decision: 'You made your choice. You chose ISIS. You turned your back on Australia. You cannot simply demand to come back and endanger the safety of every Australian community.' Tomorrow, One Nation—Senator Hanson—will introduce legislation that puts the safety of Australians first. Our bill will give Australia stronger powers to prevent foreign terrorist fighters and ISIS linked individuals from returning to this country, where they present an unacceptable security risk. It will create foreign terrorist fighter exclusion orders. It will strengthen passport powers. It will stop automatic return permits. It will tighten terrorism bail laws. All of these things the Labor government could be doing and is refusing to do. And it will impose serious penalties on anyone who unlawfully facilitates the return of a person connected to terrorist activities.

These are not symbolic measures. These are real changes that should be taking place. And Labor should have acted earlier to implement them. They are practical steps to stop the risk before it crosses our border rather than waiting until it's inside Australia, where you then hope it can be managed. One Nation's principle will always be that the safety of Australians must come first. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to blame others for their failure to act. It has refused to test every lawful option available to protect Australians. One Nation will not wash our hands of responsibility. We believe this problem can be dealt with. There are solutions, and we are taking those steps. We are introducing legislation. We will be strong at the border. We will be strong against terrorism where this Labor government has failed. (Time expired)

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to discuss something that should be completely uncontroversial. If an Australian chooses to travel overseas to join or support a terrorist organisation, that is appalling. There is no excuse for it. I have no sympathy for someone who supports an organisation that murders civilians, persecutes communities and uses terror to achieve its political aims. Where Australians have committed terrorism offences, they should face the consequences. We are a country governed by laws, and the rule of law matters most when the person involved is someone who has done something horrible. Australia cannot simply decide that an Australian citizen is somebody else's problem because they have done something inexcusable overseas.

I expect we will continue to hear about individual cases, including women who have travelled to ISIS-controlled territory, the indoctrination of children, criminal charges and decisions to grant bail. These are deeply confronting cases, and nobody on this side is pretending otherwise. And, if a case raises legitimate questions about whether our terrorism laws, bail laws or other safeguards are adequate, then we should examine them. If our agencies need additional powers, there should be a case made for them. If safeguards need strengthening, bring the evidence to the parliament and let us legislate accordingly. But that is very different from using one confronting case to justify abandoning the principle that Australia takes responsibility for its own citizens.

Australians who commit terrorism offences should be investigated, charged and prosecuted. Where someone poses an ongoing threat, our national security agencies have extensive powers to manage that threat, and, where those powers are inadequate, parliament can strengthen them.

Australia has been dealing with these cases for years. In fact, 45 men returned from fighting in Iraq and Syria before this government even came to office. This government has used every tool available to manage people who have returned, including temporary exclusion orders where the minister has received advice that issuing one was possible and appropriate.

So, if One Nation genuinely believes our laws are inadequate, show us where. Show us the evidence. Propose something that actually fixes the problem. The current TEO system was designed by the former government to sit at the absolute limit of what is constitutionally possible. Putting decisions to issue TEOs in the hands of the courts adds another legal hurdle without any reason to believe more orders would be issued.

There is another, practical problem. Australia expects other countries to take back their citizens when we deport criminals from Australia. We cannot turn around and announce that Australia will not take responsibility for ours.

There is something particularly ugly about One Nation presenting itself as the great defender of Australian safety—because apparently not all threats to Australians are treated equally. Just last month, Senator Hanson described domestic violence as a 'two-way street' and suggested women experiencing abuse should simply not 'put up with it'. If only it were that easy. She has previously described paid family and domestic violence leave as domestic violence holiday leave and suggested domestic violence was taking police away from real crime. I think the families of Australians killed by their partners might have something to say about whether that counts as real crime. Over 2024-25, 98 Australians were killed in domestic homicides; 46 were killed by an intimate partner. On average, an Australian woman was killed by an intimate partner every 11 days. These are not hypothetical threats. These are dead Australians. When One Nation talk about the safety of Australians, they really need to be more consistent.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many things that we don't agree on in this place, but there are some things that I think we can confidently say we do agree on, and one of those is that the safety of Australians, the safety of the communities that we live in—the communities that I know we're all very proud to represent in this place—is at the core of all of our work, and that's certainly at the core of the work that our government is doing.

One of the things that I'm most proud of that our government is doing to protect the safety of Australians is our investment in defence and national security. In the 2026-27 budget, our government announced record funding for defence—the biggest boost in funding in peacetime that this country has ever seen. We're delivering an extra $14 billion over the next four years and an additional $53 billion over the next 10 years. We can see the impact of that investment right in my local community through the work that's happening at the Henderson Defence Precinct and, more broadly, through the acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership. This is a key priority of our government and just one example of our commitment, a commitment that is shared by many of us, to keep Australians safe.

We've heard just in recent weeks about the really important work that the foreign minister and the Prime Minister have done to strengthen our relationships across our region and beyond. This is another example of our commitment to keeping Australians safe. The work that we do with our neighbours in the Pacific and in Asia is really, really important in making sure that our partnerships with those neighbours are strong and that they know that they can rely on us as a strong partner. As I said, it's just another example of the commitment of our government to keeping Australians safe.

On this particular issue to which One Nation senators have referred in this debate and that they talk about in the bill that they plan to introduce, it's really easy to play politics and to stoke fear and division in the community. I think that's a really irresponsible thing to do. I think it does nothing to keep Australians safe. In fact, I think it only further harms Australians and puts our safety at risk to try and undermine social cohesion and to try and stoke anger and fear in the community when it's just not necessary.

I think, as Senator Walker pointed out very rightly in her contribution, it is really important that, when you attempt to legislate for these kinds of really, really important things, you do it right. To go into it with some kind of assumption, saying, 'This is probably not going to pass a constitutional test, but we'll give it a go anyway,' is not how you keep Australians safe. It's not how you protect Australians.

I think it's really important that we don't put decisions on temporary exclusion orders into the hands of the court. We've heard in response to One Nation's policy on this issue that it's very unlikely to increase the number of temporary exclusion orders being issued and, in fact, creates only an additional barrier for governments who are looking to issue one. The current system was designed by the former government to be at the absolute limit of constitutionality, and many of the laws that have been made by former governments that attempted to strip rights from citizens or strip citizenship altogether have been thrown out by the High Court. This brings complex and difficult consequences.

Our government has been really clear that we think these people have made appalling decisions. To travel and fight with or support one of the worst terrorist organisations we have ever seen is abhorrent, and we will not provide any assistance to those cohorts attempting to return to Australia. We've used every available tool to try and manage that risk, and we will continue to do that.

Question agreed to.