Michaelia Cash: Simple way Labor can block ISIS brides’ return to Australia

The Albanese Labor Government’s excuses, equivocation and weakness over the ISIS brides’ cohort have reached new levels of absurdity this week.

But the concerning thing is that Labor’s conduct is not just political spin, it is a dangerous abdication of the Government’s responsibility to protect Australians.

The law provides clear mechanisms to manage the return of terrorism-linked individuals. Labor’s refusal to use them puts our community at risk.

Parliament passed the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act in 2019 precisely for situations like this.

Temporary exclusion orders allow the Minister for Home Affairs to prevent a person from returning to Australia for up to two years, unless they first obtain a return permit with strict conditions.

The legal threshold is deliberately low. The minister need only “suspect on reasonable grounds” — not prove beyond doubt — that issuing the order would substantially assist in preventing terrorist training, support for attacks, or resources reaching terrorist organisations.

Alternatively, an adverse ASIO security assessment related to politically motivated violence would ordinarily provide a strong evidentiary foundation for the minister to form the required reasonable suspicion.

For individuals who lived inside an ISIS caliphate, who were married to ISIS fighters, and who have spent years in camps housing ISIS families, the suggestion that this threshold cannot be met defies common sense. If these 34 people don’t meet it, who possibly could?

Minister Tony Burke claims he is “constantly receiving advice” from national security agencies on whether the threshold is met. Receiving advice is not the same as acting on it.

If the Government still cannot form a reasonable suspicion about ISIS-associated returnees, something has fundamentally broken down — either the advice process or the minister’s willingness to act.

Contrary to some misconceptions, temporary exclusion orders do not permanently exile Australian citizens. They enable managed, controlled returns with conditions designed to protect the community.

The person may be prevented from entering Australia for up to two years by the temporary exclusion order, giving authorities time to properly assess each case and prepare appropriate monitoring frameworks.

Once a temporary exclusion order is issued, the person can only return through a return permit specifying conditions such as the date and manner of arrival, security arrangements, and requirements for notification of residence, employment, and education.

This is not about denying citizenship rights. It is about exercising responsible management of those rights to protect other Australians — particularly victims of ISIS atrocities who now live in our communities.

There is also the question as to whether the Government could refuse to issue passports.

Under Section 14 of the Australian Passports Act, the minister may refuse to issue a passport if a competent authority, such as ASIO or the Australian Federal Police, suspects on reasonable grounds that a person is likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice Australia’s security, endanger others’ safety, or constitute terrorism-related offences.

This power exists and could be used. However, it presents practical challenges. If these individuals reach an Australian embassy or consulate, international law and administrative fairness principles create strong pressures to provide travel documents to citizens stranded overseas, particularly those with children.

This is precisely why TEOs are the superior mechanism. They do not prevent the issuance of passports or the return of citizens — they ensure those returns happen under controlled conditions with proper security measures in place.

Just months ago, two women and four children arrived in Victoria after leaving Syrian camps.

The Government claimed no involvement, yet Home Affairs had known of their plans since June. Passports were issued. They boarded commercial flights and arrived without any pre-entry conditions, security monitoring, or community consultation.

That was uncontrolled return masquerading as “no assistance”. It cannot happen again with 34 people.

The path forward is clear. Mr Burke should immediately issue temporary exclusion orders for each of the 34 individuals over the age of 14 currently attempting to leave Roj camp. This would give the Government up to two years per person to:

• Complete comprehensive security assessments

• Co-ordinate with law enforcement on potential criminal charges

• Establish appropriate monitoring and de-radicalisation programs

• Consult with affected communities, particularly Assyrian Christians and other ISIS victims

• Design return permits with strict, individualised conditions

A further temporary exclusion orders may be made if the statutory threshold continues to be met.

This is robust, accountable, constitutional executive action — exactly what the situation demands.

Australia recently suffered its worst terrorist attack, with 15 people killed at Bondi. The threat from ISIS-inspired extremism is not theoretical — it is lethal and ongoing.

The Prime Minister says “if you make your bed, you lie in it”.

If he genuinely believes these individuals should face consequences for supporting a genocidal terrorist caliphate, then he should use every legal tool available to ensure their return is managed, monitored, and conditional — not a walk off a plane into Australian suburbs without oversight.

Temporary exclusion orders exist for exactly this purpose. The law is clear. The threshold is low.

The Government’s excuses are running out.

Use the powers Parliament has given you, Minister Burke, or explain to Australians why you won’t protect them when you have the legal authority to do so.

Michaelia Cash is the shadow attorney-general