Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Senate · Wednesday 11 March 2026

Continued from Tuesday 3 March 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on the Coalition's proposal to criminalise third-party assistance in the repatriation of individuals associated with terrorist organisations, specifically targeting the return of so-called ISIS brides from Syria. Coalition senators argued the bill was necessary to close a loophole allowing 'self-managed returns' and to restore ministerial accountability, citing national security risks and inconsistent government messaging. Greens and Labor senators opposed the legislation, with the Greens characterising it as unconstitutional and an attack on children, while Labor maintained it did not support the bill. One Nation supported the measure, arguing it prevented the government from using intermediaries to facilitate returns.

Outcome

The bill was not passed; the transcript ends before a vote is recorded, but the debate concluded with speeches supporting and opposing the legislation.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Jonathon Duniam (TAS) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Duniam argued that the bill addressed a failure by the government to manage border security and immigration integrity regarding individuals linked to listed terrorist organisations. Duniam contended that the government was allowing third parties to facilitate the return of people who had committed terror-related offences or remained in declared areas, thereby creating a national security risk. Duniam highlighted concerns about passports being issued to this cohort without proper security vetting and suggested breaches of the Passport Act 2005 regarding who carried the documents. Duniam stated the legislation would create a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for anyone assisting such repatriations without government authorisation.

Opposition response

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Cash argued that the government was engaging in contradictory behaviour by publicly stating ISIS sympathisers were unwelcome while privately facilitating their return through intermediaries. Cash claimed that federal and state agencies had been coordinating these returns for months, undermining public trust and national security. Cash asserted that the bill would restore ministerial accountability by making it a criminal offence to assist in the return of individuals associated with terrorist organisations without explicit ministerial approval. Cash emphasised that the government should own these decisions transparently rather than outsourcing them to NGOs or private individuals.