Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Would the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen Australian citizenship and protect our nation from foreign fighters and other known terrorists? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches which could put Australians at risk?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. Like all Australians, we've watched on in horror as Australians have fallen victim to terrorist attacks in our country. We've paid tribute to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies for keeping Australians safe. They've been able to thwart some 14 attempted attacks in our country. One of the big concerns and threats we have as a Western democracy is the fact of people returning from the Middle East, foreign fighters that have left our shores—in many cases Australian citizens, so they have a right to return back to our country once they've finished in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever it is that they might be fighting in the name of ISIL, for example.

So this government has taken strong decisions in relation to the ways in which we can keep Australians safe. And, from my perspective, and I believe with the support of the Australian people, we have done whatever is constitutionally and legally proper and appropriate to keep those people from our shores. I don't want them coming back. If they're an Australian citizen under the Constitution, they have the ability to come back, and that is the way the law is. Some people say, 'Why would we allow these terrorists to come back and potentially cause a catastrophic event in our country?' So we have to get the balance right. And I believe that we have got the balance right. We've seen 12 dual nationals, because of their actions in relation to terrorist-type activity, lose their Australian citizenship. From my perspective, that is a good thing. Australia is safer because of that. We have had a number of people who have been killed in the Middle East—who have been fighting in the name of ISIL, for example—and, frankly, that is a good outcome as well, because those people will not return to our country to cause harm or to cause a mass casualty event in our country.

Imagine my surprise when, this week, the Labor Party backflipped on a bipartisan position to support the government to strengthen the citizenship laws that would make it harder for those terrorists to come back into our country. Imagine my surprise when the member for Isaacs said in the media today that, frankly, he's not interested in supporting government's position. Why would he say that? It seems that every time the shadow Attorney-General—the man who would be the Attorney-General, the first law officer, in a Shorten government—has the opportunity to stand up for a victim he chooses not to. He stands up instead for the criminal. Every time he has the chance to stand up for strong border security, does he do that? No, he stands up for the people smugglers. The member for Isaacs needs to realise that he is paid by the Australian people and he needs to act in Australia's interests. This week, on border protection and national security, he has failed that test.