Posts

From Iran to Australia: A Defiant Warning

,

On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.

Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.

She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.

Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.

The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.

Transcript

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family: 

My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian. 

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed. 

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment. 

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world. 

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia. 

I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues: 

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister. 

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence. 

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children. 

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok. 

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country. 

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation. 

So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly. 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. 

Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.  

Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech. 

Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts. 

Janet Shay continues: 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.  

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. 

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered. 

She says: 

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation. 

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians. 

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly. 

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves. 

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside. 

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen. 

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did. 

Long live a free Australia. 

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate. 

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/0 Comments/by

The Danger of Dancing Around Radical Islam

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I had the opportunity to question Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Although the session was brief, it raised an important issue.

How can we protect Australians if Islamic-motivated terrorism cannot be addressed directly?

It is difficult to resolve “misunderstandings” about mainstream Islamic teachings without acknowledging that radical interpretations have been used by violent actors, including in the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.

While these views may fall outside mainstream doctrine, the reality is that many individuals adopt these distorted interpretations that lead to real-world harm.

Avoiding the link between extremist interpretations of Islam and terrorism ultimately makes it harder to address the problem effectively.

One Nation is prepared to have these difficult conversations if it means protecting Australians and ensuring tragedies like the Bondi attack Never. Happen. Again.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. It’s nice to have you in person rather than on the box. Following my question on notice 1477 relating to the cost of producing the National Response to Islamophobia, which has not been answered, what is the cost of the document?  

Mr Malik: I thought I had submitted those answers. I’m sorry if you haven’t received them. I did complete all that. Have you received them?  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Malik: I apologise. I have answered your question. Maybe I will follow up with the support envoy team as to why you haven’t received those.  

Senator DUNIAM: Is it still with the minister?  

Mr Malik: I replied back to the envoy support team when I got the questions on notice. I responded straightaway. Sorry. I apologise. I can follow that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the December estimates, I asked you why your report did not mention Sharia law and you asked, ‘What version of Sharia law?’ Therefore, you didn’t mention any. Let me be specific. The Centre for Arbitration and Resolution of Disputes, CARD, run by the Australian National Imams Council, the peak body for imams in Australia, arbitrates disputes in marital areas and civil disputes. Is this an alternative system of law based on Islamic teaching rather than on the laws applying to every other Australian?  

Mr Malik: I don’t think there are two systems of law. Everyone here understands and fully accepts that everyone works underneath Australian law. I’m not a spokesperson for the CARD. That question perhaps is best asked of them. It tries to arrive at a mutual understanding between the two partners. I’m not the spokesperson. You could clarify with them yourselves, but I think that’s why it was established.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said it was voluntary. Apparently it’s not. By consent settlement in marital disputes can be filed with the Family Court as a binding agreement, an agreement made under Sharia law?  

Mr Malik: Again, I would have to push back on that. From my understanding—as I say again, I’m not a spokesperson for CARD; I’ve actually had no engagement with CARD as well—it seems to be operating as many of the councils in the UK, and that is where the husband and wife will come together with a religious imam to try to reconcile between the two. But, ultimately, the divorce can only take place in a secular court. Again, you would need to direct that to CARD.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Imams Council has called for an end to the use of words like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘extremist Islam’. The Australian National Imams Council leader, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman, has gone further and declared that terrorism and Islam should not be linked at all. Your report failed to mention Islamic terrorism. Will you now correct that omission you have on your statement, and discuss the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam? Feel free to include Bondi.  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’ve actually just finished writing an article. The first topic I dedicated to you. It should be out in a few weeks. I answer that question very specifically. Again, one needs to understand the history of Islam rather than going on YouTube or TikTok. The Prophet Muhammad, who’s seen as the sole authority in Islam, said two people would be denied paradise, and the first one is a religious extremist. Muslims get confused when people say questions like you put forward to us, because within mainstream normative Islam extremism is anathema. It’s really something that we have to stay away from. Those individuals who break that code or that ethical conduct are individuals on the fringes of mainstream society. For example, when Scott Morrison read his article about reforming Islam, he seemed to miss the point that the individuals are out of their systems. As one of the leaders of Muslim countries explained, mainstream Islam does not accept extremism. It’s actually anathema to Islam. But non-Muslims will say, ‘These guys are quoting from the Quran and saying that God is great. They must be Muslims and Islam.’ I acknowledge the confusion, but I think it can quickly be put to bed by just a simple conversation and a simple reading of history, to be honest with you, as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you provide us with a copy of that article?  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’m hoping it will be published within two or three weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put another question on notice. 

/0 Comments/by

The Alarming Reality of ISIS Returnees

,

Australians have a right to answers when it comes to our national security.

During this session with Home Affairs, I asked several questions about the returning ISIS families and frankly, the lack of clarity is alarming.

Deradicalisation programs for these returning children are entirely voluntary. If the mothers do not consent, the states have no authority to force participation.

Basic questions, like whether any of the returning adult partners hold dual citizenship, or even the general age range of the children, were repeatedly put “on notice” due to privacy concerns.

If these children are deemed at risk and taken into state care, it will be the state taxpayers left holding the bill.

Instead of clear answers on security risks and monitoring, we got political deflections from Labor ministers trying to pass the buck.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have one other question, and then I’ll move on. We can go through quickly. Are any of the returning terrorist partners dual citizens?  

Ms Foster: I’d like to take that question on notice. I’m very conscious that, whilst there’s been a lot of public scrutiny of this—  

Senator ROBERTS: And concern.  

Ms Foster: and concern in the community, these are Australian citizens, and I just want to be careful that I’m not breaching any privacy considerations by providing personal details about the cohort. So let me take that on notice and see whether or not that’s information that I’m able to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Or if you can provide it in a way that doesn’t breach privacy, by saying, ‘Yes, three of them are, and they’re of this country, this country and this country.’  

Ms Foster: Certainly. I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator Watt: Senator, can I just add one thing here? I don’t know whether you’ve heard this point before, but it’s also worth remembering that, during the coalition’s period in office, there were over 40 actual fighters—as opposed to wives and children—who returned to the country. That’s just for some perspective here as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know what value that adds to this case, but thank you for letting me know.  

Senator Watt: I think it’s just useful background.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I can’t interrogate Senator Duniam.  

Senator DUNIAM: We can swap if you’d like!  

Senator Watt: I’ll pass!  

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Foster, I think we can go through the rest of the questions pretty quickly, because they’re fairly simple, I think. I appreciate your need to protect security. Have the ISIS children already here commenced deradicalisation programs yet?  

Ms Foster: I don’t know the answer to that question. I’m assuming you mean those from the first cohort who came back a few weeks ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Foster: Let me see if anyone knows the answer to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice, please.  

Ms Foster: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the newly arrived children participate in deradicalisation programs?  

Ms Foster: The state and territory authorities will make an assessment on a case-by-case basis about the needs of each child and what is appropriate given each of their circumstances. That’s part of the process that takes place once the families return.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume, then, that you don’t know how many children will do the deradicalisation program.  

Ms Foster: I don’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is participation dependent on their agreement or the consent of their mothers?  

Mr Dowling: The programs which are provided by the states and territories as they relate to deradicalisation or counselling are voluntary. My presumption would be that for a minor under a certain age, depending on the rules in that jurisdiction, parental permission would potentially be involved. But I think it would depend on each jurisdiction and how they operate their programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: What will happen if the mothers do not consent? Have the states got the authority to force it?  

Mr Dowling: For those types of counselling programs, I don’t believe there is the power to compel someone to participate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate you answering the questions even though you are not completely certain. I understand why. Are any of the children expected to remain in the care of the state in cases where the children are considered at risk in the care of the mother? In other words, will the state taxpayers get the bill?  

Mr Dowling: That would be a decision for each jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the children considered a risk to the safety of Australians? What’s the oldest child’s age?  

Mr Dowling: There is an age range. I think to provide that detail would probably cross the privacy boundaries of what we’re able to share.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want names—just the range.  

Ms Foster: Let us take that on notice and see if we can provide that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Are any of the children—just the children—considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Mr Dowling: State and territory law enforcement and the Federal Police, as the secretary has outlined, are taking a role in continuing investigations in relation to anyone who’s arrived back home. Any implications for safety or security would be a matter for those authorities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the terrorist widows or brides or partners considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Ms Foster: I described before the process that the law enforcement and intelligence agencies will continue to take to assess the risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: And that’s largely state?  

Ms Foster: It’s a combination. In terms of the management of the people in their states, it’s the state law enforcement agencies. But, obviously, ASIO in particular has an intelligence function that crosses Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: And they have been advising you?  

Ms Foster: They would be contributing to the assessments about the risks or threats posed.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that earlier. Will any of the children or the adult partners be monitored?  

Ms Foster: The exact actions that the law enforcement or intelligence agencies take are ones for them. That was the subject before where I was saying that I was uncomfortable discussing what specific activities might be undertaken, because none of us wants to put those activities at risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is one of the returning children the child seen holding up the decapitated head of a murdered man that appeared in the media some years ago?  

Mr Dowling: I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many more of these terrorists’ partners and children will the government be bringing back to the country?  

Ms Foster: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Or allowing back into the country?  

Ms Foster: As we’ve said before, Australian citizens have a right to enter Australia if they hold citizenship, valid passports or valid travel documents. Apart from the one person against whom the government issued a temporary exclusion order, the other adults of the cohort of women and children who were held in the internally displaced persons camp in Syria have returned with their children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your considered responses. I know it’s a difficult thing.  

Ms Foster: Thank you, Senator.  

/2 Comments/by

The Cost of Returned ISIS Wives

,

The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed that they had zero involvement in monitoring returned ISIS terrorist wives, or running deradicalisation programs for the children. This responsibility was passed to the Department of Home Affairs.

When asked what will it cost taxpayers to bring back and monitor these individuals, the answer? They have absolutely no idea. Officials stated that the government didn’t actually facilitate or fund the return of these families. They said they used to handle countering violent extremism, but it was moved to Home Affairs in 2017.

Now, their only real involvement is occasionally giving “general international law advice.”

If no one in the Attorney-General’s Department is tracking the costs or the monitoring, Australians are left asking: who is?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Returning to the ISIS terrorist spouses or whatever you want to call them, did the government seek your advice before returning them to Australia? 

Ms Jones: I think we have previously given evidence to the committee that, over the course of many years, we have from time to time been involved in some discussions and we’ve provided general international law advice but we don’t play a role of providing advice in relation to particular movements of people. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was the Attorney-General’s Department consulted on the program for deradicalisation of these children? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: What is your responsibility for funding of legal aid? 

Ms Jones: We are responsible for overseeing the National Access to Justice Partnership and other legal assistance schemes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you involved in any way in advising on or implementing or monitoring the program for monitoring these terrorists when they return? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even after the High Court decision on the case in the Northern Territory? 

Ms Jones: I’m not sure which case you’re referring to there, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: XYZ—I can’t remember the details. 

Ms Jones: NZYQ? 

Senator ROBERTS: NZYQ; thank you. 

Ms Jones: I would put that in a category very separate to anything relating to the return of Australians from Syria. Over the course of the NZYQ matter, before the High Court and then beyond that, we were involved in that, but that was quite separate from anything relating to returning Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but that case involved monitoring. 

Ms Chidgey: That was also a matter for the Department of Home Affairs and its agencies. 

Senator ROBERTS: Wasn’t it also the Attorney-General giving advice as to whether or not monitoring or ankle bracelets were a form of punishment? Is there any form of punishment that can be ruled here? Is someone going to lodge a claim with the government? 

Ms Chidgey: I think all those questions are matters for Home Affairs. 

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got anything to add to it? 

Ms Chidgey: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you know nothing about monitoring? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General’s Department knows nothing about monitoring. Do you have any inkling of the cost involved with bringing these wives back and monitoring them? 

Ms Jones: I’m sorry; no. We don’t have a responsibility, so I couldn’t talk to any costs associated with that. 

Ms Chidgey: It’s probably useful to make clear that for the recent cohorts the government didn’t facilitate their return at all. Any questions about management of that cohort in Australia now that they’ve returned should be directed to Home Affairs, but the government didn’t in any way facilitate or manage their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that? 

Ms Chidgey: We’re aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issues passports. But the government itself, on the public record, including the Prime Minister, has been clear that the government didn’t otherwise assist or facilitate their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: And you take his word for it? 

Ms Jones: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was this once or previously a responsibility of your department? 

Ms Jones: There was a time before the creation of the Department of Home Affairs when the AttorneyGeneral’s Department had responsibility for deradicalisation programs and the countering violent extremism program, but that moved across to the Department of Home Affairs in 2017. 

Ms Chidgey: I can confirm that for any of the returns from Syria this department has not taken any leading role. That has been the Department of Home Affairs and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about any subsidiary role? 

Ms Chidgey: As I think the secretary mentioned, we have at times provided some advice on Australia’s international obligations. 

/0 Comments/by