23 February 2026

Punish anyone trying to help Australians linked to IS return home, says Opposition

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
43
Al-Roj camp in Northern Syria

Thirty-four women and children have been issued Australian passports and are trying to return from Syria (pictured, Al-Roj camp in Northern Syria). Photo: Save the Children Australia.

The Federal Government has dismissed as headline-grabbing an Opposition proposal to make it a crime to assist any Australians with links to Islamic State to return from Syria.

Currently, 34 wives and children of former fighters are trying to get back to Australia, sparking a political outcry over what help the Federal Government may or may not be giving them.

Anthony Albanese insists the government is not helping repatriate them at all and will provide no assistance whatsoever.

But Australian passports have been issued to them, with the Prime Minister saying the government is acting in accordance with the Constitution and legal advice.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has imposed a temporary block on one member of the group, but says none of the others qualified for such a ban and that all of the 34 were legally entitled to passports.

Family members and friends are believed to have taken the passports to Syria for the women and children.

The Coalition wants such actions criminalised, saying anyone who helps Australians with links to Islamic State return home should be punished.

READ ALSO Australia looking at implications of Trump’s latest tariff tantrum

Shadow home affairs minister Jonno Duniam said an exemption should only apply if the government gave “express permission” for a repatriation.

“This legislation sends a very clear message – anyone who travels to a designated terrorist hotspot, such as Syria, to support a death cult like ISIS does not deserve to come back to Australia,” Senator Duniam said.

Shadow foreign minister Ted O’Brien said self-managed returns of people like the 34 in question was a loophole in the law that needed to be closed.

“Under that arrangement, it permits non-government third parties to organise terrorists and their affiliates to enter Australia, and they can do that on their own without government oversight,” Mr O’Brien said.

“So this proposed law closes that loophole, brings back responsibility to lie with the government and doesn’t allow the government to effectively outsource the repatriation of terror sympathisers back to Australia.”

Health Minister Mark Butler dismissed the idea as a “grab for a headline” when asked about it on morning radio.

He said the Opposition had presented no details and didn’t address “what appears to be some plans to try and criminalise the work of aid organisations like Save the Children”.

Mr Albanese went further on Monday morning (23 February), telling the media that the Coalition didn’t have any serious plans.

“If they did, they wouldn’t have allowed more than 40 people to come, including fighters, on their watch when they were in government,” the Prime Minister said.

“They pretend that the Constitution doesn’t exist,”

“They know there are some limits on what can be done, but I repeat – our position is we are not repatriating people and we are not providing assistance.”

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the government was operating under laws devised by the former Coalition government of Scott Morrison.

She added that Australians needed to have confidence in the nation’s intelligence and security agencies.

“Our agencies are the best in the world. They have been monitoring this cohort for years, and secondly, any proposed laws would obviously need to be done in consultation with our agencies and take their advice,” she said.

READ ALSO Immigration policy gearing up to be hottest issue of next election

Save the Children has issued a statement raising concerns over the Coalition’s plan, saying any proposal to criminalise assistance to children would be “extraordinary”.

Chief executive officer Mat Tinkler said Save the Children has already made it clear it is not facilitating the re-entry of Australian citizens from northeastern Syria.

“We have not, and will not, conduct extraction or repatriation operations,” he said.

“As a humanitarian organisation, we abide by principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity and operate in compliance with Australian and international law.

“In the case of innocent children stranded in camps in northeastern Syria, our role has been twofold: providing them with lifesaving humanitarian relief and advocating for national governments to repatriate their citizens.

“While we have yet to see the details of this proposal, any attempt to criminalise advocacy for Australian children stranded overseas would be extraordinary.

“Instead of investing effort in ways to stop help for innocent Australian children, politicians should be focused on finding ways to protect them.

“Save the Children is a charity dedicated to keeping children safe and giving them the best start in life. We believe all children are innocent and should not be held responsible for their parents’ actions.

“No Australian child should be left stranded in dangerous desert camps for seven long years, and both sides of government have previously recognised this by repatriating groups of Australian children and women in the past.

“We call on political parties to dial down the political rhetoric. It is time to show leadership and compassion for Australian children. The race to the bottom at the expense of vulnerable children’s lives must end.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

43
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

In news that should surprise nobody, it’s been revealed that some of the women involved have been subject to AFP Temporary Exclusion Orders due to the level of risk they’ve been assessed to present.

That means risk to Australians.

As far as I’m concerned, Australian citizens are Australia’s problem. If any of the women hold Australian citizenship, we should bring them home, charge them with any applicable offences and examine if they meet the criteria to have their Australian citizenship stripped from them.

and educate their children here, not in a foreign concentration camp.

I don’t agree. As soon as they joined ISIS they should lose Australian citizenship.

Nice to know, Ric Hingee, but given that is not the law, nor constitutionally valid, would you like to try a relevant comment?

You might also recall that most of the wives and many of the children travelled from Australia with their husbands whom they are sworn to obey (religious marriage ceremonies, true also of christian religions until declining use since the mid-20th C).

Your aim therefore is to punish children of people classified in some cases as victims of terrorism (their husband’s or father’s) rather than give Australian child citizens a chance in life, for they will have little while they stay there.

I will rely on security analysis. One of the women already has a TEO against her.

They are Australian citizens Rick Hingee and citizenship can’t be stripped. If they broke our laws they should be returned to Australia to face the consequences and our justice system.

But who would bother arguing with ignorance!

Jack, citizenship can be stripped in certain circumstances. Firstly they have to be dual citizens, then they have to be jailed for at least 3 years for offences linked to terrorism or national security risks.

I would suggest we are both half right Garfield. Only a court (not a minister) can strip citizenship under certain circumstances. Nor can a person be stripped of citizenship if it would render them stateless. The law is very complex and it is very rare indeed. The Dutton government tried to circumvent these laws but were unsuccessful.

These women and their children are Australian citizens and cannot be stripped of their citizenship in their current circumstances or Australian law.

Jack, I’ll accept you were half right.

Stephen Saunders7:54 am 24 Feb 26

Same old Liberal-Labor sideshow, same old bait and switch. Look-over-there at “border control”, as net migration trundles on, at 1% of population.

Australia is the only first-world nation that’s running third-world population growth. It’s Jim Chalmers’ “special sauce” for de-industrialisation and low productivity growth.

No other wealthy nation,

Australia’s net overseas migration is right in line with long term rates, and declining to 0.8% of population next year. Permanent settlement is about a third of that. Without that migration, we will have declining population and living standards with more older people out of the workforce and fewer younger people in it.

Migration is fully in accord with our country’s needs and fully consistent with our proven long term ability to absorb some people from different cultures.

Stephen Saunders never wants to talk about reality, only to try to label immigration intrinsically “bad” for unstated reasons, yet he too is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants. More than half our living population was born overseas or has a parent who was.

Has the opposition considered how this legislation might apply to Australians who go to Gaza to join the IDF? That is clearly a terrorist hotspot, with terrorism in all directions.

Capital Retro5:15 pm 23 Feb 26

The IDF isn’t a terrorist organization, psycho and as a non-Jew, you can’t serve in the IDF unless you’re either a citizen or a permanent resident of Israel.

The IDF may not be a proscribed terrorist organisation (with an s, not a z, as per Macquarie dictionary).

However, I have a feeling that over a million civilians in Gaza may feel otherwise, despite the nomenclature.

Capital Retro10:49 am 24 Feb 26

Are you happy to use the name of an oppressive colonialist governor as a reference to the correct spelling of a group of people?

Any other trivia you have to contribute, jamiescot (without the hyphen)?

It’s even simpler than that CR, jamie thinks the feelings of a million Gazans are more important than the security of 10 million Israelis who just want to live in peace.

Capital Retro11:53 am 24 Feb 26

You mean 999,997 Gazans Penfold.

The other 3,000 have already settled in Australia.

Lookout CR, Axon will be providing one of his famous maths lessons shortly.

Regardless, yes you’re likely correct. They were probably on the Harbour Bridge a few months ago and “praying” at Sydney Town Hall two weeks ago.

No compassion for wives and children of terrorists even though it’s clear that some wives were actually children or immature adults when they were silly enough to go.

Why do we allow Australians to come back here after joining the IDF in killing Palestinian children and mothers in their homes, civilians on their own land in Gaza as well as journalists, aid workers, health professionals and other workers? These are actual soldiers doing the killing that is internationally condemned as genocide. Do we really want these people here? They bring their hatred and violence back to our country, dividing our multicultural nation.

Capital Retro5:19 pm 23 Feb 26

Anyone who has served in the IDF is also a resident of Israel psycho, so while there may be some who also reside in Australia they are doing their duty.

Clearly the government and many parts of the media still don’t understand the real issues here.

The government also appear not to understand their own legislation. What a shambles.

How about you explain it for us Penfold.

Seems to me they are our responsibility & if they are Australian citizens they are entitled to come home & if they have broken any laws Australia needs to hold them accountable.

That would be hard franky because you don’t get it either. They aren’t our responsibility, they’ve chosen a different path. They are the highest of high risks, the children have buckleys of integrating with our education system, they’ve lucked out in life because of the actions of their mothers and fathers. They’ve chosen sharia law over Australian law.

If we don’t draw a line here, when will we ever draw a line ?

You are wrong in fact & in law Penfold.
If they are Australian citizens they ARE totally our responsibility & we have to deal with them just the same way NZ has to deal with its criminal citizens when we send them back.

TG it sounds like you think national security is receiving a fortnightly dole check. No real surprise there i guess. As for “genocide incitement”, well surely that’s one of the most stupid comments ever seen on this forum.

franky – you don’t even know if they’re Aussie citizens yet you demand we repatriate them ? Goodness grief.

Thats about your 500th evasion on Region Penfold.
Well done.

Sorry franky, thought i had explained it though perhaps the first line of the 4:29 post was more pertinent than the remainder.

It’s all very well to jump up and down yelling “but … but …. the children”, if they’re not Australians then we have zero responsibility. If they’re dual citizens then might I suggest we should reject them too.

But out of curiosity, would you offer them a bed in your house or be happy if your kids went to school together ?

Penfold writes that the first line of his 4:29 post explains something. It says, “That would be hard franky because you don’t get it either.” which is typical Pen-straw, making baseless claims while never dealing with franky22’s accurate response at 6:08.

The women are Australian citizens, as are their children, because they were when most of them travelled with or after their husbands over there. Therefore, Penstraw’s “If” is easily answered: they are.

We could be at less risk having children educated here with other Australians, in Australian values (remember those, Penfold the anti-democrat?) rather than embittered at this country while being raised in stress in tantamount to a concentration camp.

They are citizens. If they are criminals then we have established law and long experience for dealing with those. The rest is a beat-up.

Well Axon the same question applies to you – would you offer them a bed in your house or be happy if your kids went to school together ?

We all know the answer, it’s a rhetorical question really.

As for Save the Children – i spent several years donating monthly to them thinking they were about saving children. And then it turned out they spent most of the cash not on saving children, but on activism and administration. Avoid is the best course of action.

Pen-straw’s Full Avoidance mode is ON.

He has been found wanting, his opening baseless claims and subsequent baseless claims all on the floor.

Would I have a problem if Muslim (or name your religion) children of parents unknown to me were at the same school as mine? I lack your blind prejudice, Penfold. Of course I would not mind. Why should I? Are you really that terrified? Dare you ever emerge from your cave underground?

Would I offer a bed in my house to random unknowns who turned up at the door, or call Immigration to say the next incoming family from anywhere can doss at my house? What a stupid question.

Well Axon, what you ignrantly call “blind prejudice” millions of Australians call informed opinion based on observation.

But thanks for confirming that, as expected, there’s no welcome mat out at casa de Axon either.

Would I have a problem if Muslim (or name your religion) children of parents unknown to me were at the same school as mine?“

Sneaky Axon, avoiding the question which was about these particular children who’ve spent years living in war-ravaged areas, plus refugee camps, by parental choice . And we don’t know whether they’re Muslim, they were your words.

So it’s safe to assume that as a parent you wouldn’t want your kids schooled alongside them. There’s a word for that, one such an expert practitioner of the English language would be familiar with. Hypocrisy.

Feel free to apologise for your baseless accusations 😊

The uninformed debate of the Pengold express in full flight.

Unable to answer the most basic of questions about his position whilst coming up with meaningless and illogical comparisons to avoid the subject.

It is most clear that Pengold is the one who “doesn’t get it”.

Because he’s unable to move past the groupthink talking points fed to him daily.

What we should or even can do with these people must be based on the constitution and Australian law, rather than the anarchist position put forward by the goldfish.

Drivel, Penfold, and the “blind prejudice” to which I referred belongs to you, much as you would like to mislead others.

Now you imagine that ISIS brides might not be Muslim. Not that it matters, because you avoided my key phrase, “of parents unknown to me”.

Unable to explain or defend your own comments, now you want to lie about mine. Your “safe to assume” is self-serving drivel.

Be less terrified. I will not say anything to suggest you might apologise because it is well known by observation that you are quite incapable of admitting any error in your own mind. The very thought of learning or adjusting your view frightens you too much.

Capital Retro10:09 am 25 Feb 26

Well, this is what we are letting in to Australia Penfold.

https://youtu.be/tW_7me1Nj7w

Axon – despite regularly informing us on your English language expertise, it appears the definition of term “prejudice” escapes you. The definition of the term is “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. It is likely that the word “blind” can be inferred. But we digress ….

It sounds like you are telling us that these mothers and kids, who have spent years in these awful places, though the mother’s choices, would not be in the slightest bit impacted in a negative and possibly even anti-social way by the experience. Good thing that people way smarter than you and I have studied these issues and have found significant issues.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre3pdxde7vo

Further, these issues can also affect those they come in contact with, for example Australian people and children. In other words, there’s a high risk.

So unless you can provide medical or psychological evidence to the contrary it would appear any prejudice – “opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience” – sits fairly and squarely on your side of the fence.

Poor Penfold. In his desperation to change the subject he imputes so many things not said or argued by me, while ignoring the elephant which stomped on the failure of his opening and subsequent claims.
Realities:
– These are Australian citizens.
– Many of them went there because they were obeying their husbands as already discussed and is undisputed by Penstraw, or simply loved them enough to think they should.
– Their children had no say in that matter.
– They are being assessed by our security organisations for threat, and by police for possible criminal offences, and will be treated accordingly on their return. One of them has a TEO.
– Their children’s best chance of rehabilitation or reintegration is here, in Australia, to which they are entitled as Australian minors.

It would not trouble me if one of those children were at a school attended by mine, and why should it?

“preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience” fits you on this and a whole range of subjects, Penfold. Better go back to be fed your next talking point.

Well Axon it’s noted that you’re far more concerned about the welfare of these kids than that of Australian kids.

Did you do any marching or protesting recently ?

“Well Axon it’s noted that you’re far more concerned about the welfare of these kids than that of Australian kids.”

Do you ever stop shooting yourself in the foot?

These ARE Australian kids.

Which is the entire point that you avoid to make your illogical comparisons.

Well we’ve learned something new today Axon. Apparently you’ve got a sense of humour ! 🙂

I guess this is what Pengold actually means when he talks about people “shutting down debate”.

Pointing out basic errors that destroy his arguments, whilst laughing as he trundles away.

He really needs to get a sense of humour

😂😂😂🐑🐑🐑

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.