Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:16): I rise to make a contribution to the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I've often said in this place that it is the No. 1 job of any government to protect the Australian people. I've long been on record suggesting that this government is not doing that.

In fact, there are so many points of evidence, data points, that any Australian can look at and see that this government has dropped the ball in the worst of ways. Senator Hanson, the proponent of this bill, has highlighted a number of those. Recent history dictates that this government, far from doing the No. 1 job to keep Australians safe, has rolled out the welcome mat—the red carpet, the express lane—into Australia for people who turned their back on this country.

These are people who made an active choice to go and do something that is not in our country's interests and is in fact something that only an enemy of our country would do. These are people who chose to join Islamic State and support Islamic State and their aims and imperatives. This is an organisation that hates the Australian way of life, the rule of law and our democratic systems.

We know all too well that Islamic State, ISIS, and all its functionaries and supporters want to see the unpicking of the way we live in this country and of the things that make Australia a great country. So how on earth did this government actively lean in to assist individuals who made that choice to turn their back on this country, fly over to wherever in the world they ended up—in this case Syria, a declared terrorist hotspot, where under law it was a criminal act to fly there and remain—and, what's more, support the efforts of a listed terrorist organisation and of individuals perpetrating these harms against people right across the globe?

Now they want to come back, as Senator Hanson pointed out. They've made this choice. They've gone and perpetrated harms.

They've supported others doing so, like this Dr Jihad who claimed he wasn't a combatant so he's not a threat. He was 'healing the wounds of people' who made the choice to do these things, who killed people, beheaded people and did terrible acts. Now we're saying we should welcome them back.

The government have been active in these conversations with third parties who want to bring them back, offering not just one bit of support. They provided them passports. They allowed them to have their ID checked.

Once they got to Australia, they were ferried from the planes to hotels organised by government officials, who bought them pizza on their first night here. And of course we don't know where they are in the community. We don't know where they are in Australia.

Australians don't know whether they're living next door to these people. They don't know whether they're in their street or whether their kids are going to somehow cross paths with these individuals. This is the situation that we have under this government, and it is not okay to say: 'Nothing to see here.

Everything is fine. Australians are safe.' That is what the current situation is. I should also reflect, though, that the current temporary exclusion order regime is something that the last coalition government brought in in response to a situation that we faced as a country once Islamic State, the caliphate, had collapsed and we had these people seeking to return to Australia, as they could under Australian law, with no capacity to be stopped by government.

There was no temporary exclusion order regime, and there was no control order regime. So, in order to do what we could under the limits of the constitution, the last coalition government introduced both of those regimes to protect Australians—to, as best we could under the constitution, prevent these enemies of our country from coming back—and to, if they did come back, put control orders on them so that we could monitor, manage them and at least have knowledge of where they were and, most importantly, protect Australians from the harm these people would bring back in.

We will welcome any measure that protects Australian people and any measure that seeks to improve the current situation. We had our own private senators' bill to improve the regime around dealing with anyone who would seek to repatriate these people who made these choices against Australia and who sought to cause harm to our country. Of course, the government opposed it.

We did have the support of One Nation and a couple of others on the crossbench. Sadly, it was not to pass. We'll welcome any measure that does go some way to strengthening the regime that is in place today, because the world has changed since the temporary exclusion order regime was put in place, and we need to be dynamic in how we respond.

Doing something is better than doing nothing. That is what this government is doing: 'How it is today is fine. It doesn't matter whether these ISIS brides or Dr Jihad come back into Australia.

There's nothing we can do. It's just going to happen.' I don't accept that for a minute. To that end, we are supportive of the elements of this legislation, as outlined by Senator Hanson.

Of course, we do have some concerns, but concerns are to be worked through. If we're serious about getting into the business of protecting Australian people, then parties like the government, with all of their resources, could work with One Nation to improve any concerns they might have about the legislation. Senator Hanson has said that the concerns raised by government aren't an issue, and any proponent of any bit of legislation can say that.

I would do the same about my own bill. But, if concerns are held, highlight what they are and find a way to fix them. Doing nothing is not the answer.

We will have more of the same. It is important to note, though, that, in the committee report, there were some concerns raised, not relating to constitutionality. That is one of the areas of concern, but I do note the comments of Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper of the National Security College, who raised a number of concerns about the bill.

The report reads: She made the point that the term 'protect the Australian community' is used throughout the bill while not being 'adequately defined and likely to capture a range of behaviours and views not legitimately the domain of regulation in a representative democracy.' Associate Professor Ireland-Piper also indicated that it was not clear from the bill what 'behaviours or concerns' would constitute a declaration and application to the Court for a Foreign Terrorist Fighter Exclusion (FTFE) Order which are not already … captured by the existing Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) regime.

So there are issues there that we need to highlight and that we do need to look at, and, if there is a pathway to deal with these concerns—Associate Professor Ireland-Piper has expertise in national security and comes from the National Security College and is someone who would know a thing or two about what it takes to protect our country and how we can improve laws—then we should look at that.

That is what this chamber and the committees of this chamber are tasked with. As I say, we support doing something. Is this perfect?

Well, there are some out there who say, 'No, it's not,' but our job is to improve it, not do nothing—which is, sadly, the government's approach here. I think it is important that we back in any measure that will protect our country. We have to back in anyone who puts their life on the line to protect our country.

Our veterans, our national security officials—anyone who seeks to stamp out the evil in our community, whoever they are and whatever political allegiance they may have. First and foremost, we are Australians, and we should all band together to stop evil people, like the ones this bill contemplates, from doing the harms to this country that they seek to do. And anyone who lays down their life, who puts their life in the path of danger to protect our country—veterans, national security officials, and colleagues in this place, past and present—should not be denigrated.

With that, of course we will support the vote on this legislation. It does something; this government does nothing. We remain in harm's way.

I look forward to further consideration of this bill.