ISIS brides saga reveals ‘instinct for secrecy’
Here are five conclusions about the repatriation of the so-called jihadi brides and their children to Australia. First, despite its denials the government is deeply involved. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke leads the process, but several state and federal agencies must be involved.
Second the Department of Home Affairs participated at senior levels in two meetings between Burke and Save the Children. Third, reluctant or not, department officials are following the government’s lead to deny the federal government’s active engagement in repatriating the jihadis and their children.
Fourth, ministers and officials are failing in their obligation “that there be the freest flow of information between the public sector and the parliament”. Finally, this is another example of the Albanese government abusing public service processes to hide, control or limit information being made available to Australians.
It should come as no surprise that the federal government is fully driving decision-making to repatriate people who left Australia to support the terror group ISIS.
Released documents show a co-ordinated attempt to distance Labor politically from a repatriation process it was actively managing. The Home Affairs Minister met Mat Tinkler from Save the Children on June 13. The NGO has been leading advocacy to return the jihadi women and their children from Syrian refugee camps.
An official’s “quick readout” from the meeting reports “the following statements” from Burke: “Government doesn’t have a plan to get people out of the camps at this time; The thinking is if people are able to get out, there are no blockages to them returning”.
Later the official writes: “Minister stated there may be a way to achieve the same outcome without government undertakings … At this stage, I was asked to leave by the Minister to enable a frank discussion to take place.” The meaning is unmistakeable: Burke wanted deniability, not clarity. Typically, ministers want note-takers present to record their judgments and to offer “on the record” accuracy. Confidential discussions are the enemy of open government.
The jihadi brides and their progeny arrived. The government strategy of not creating “blockages” worked. But this was hardly hands off: passports were issued; security assessments made; ministers met NGOs and officials; state police were warned; state and federal support agencies will be providing support. Australians face rigorous checks for even routine financial transactions on the grounds of counter-terrorism and combating money laundering, yet the government claims that issuing passports and facilitating travel for former ISIS adherents involved, in Burke’s words, “no repatriation and no assistance”.
Home Affairs considered this issue to be so important that agency head Stephanie Foster attended the first meeting between Burke and Tinkler on October 9 last year.
Foster tabled her handwritten notes from the meeting, which recorded that “TB” offered a “c’ment to find a way” even though “politics harder at this end of term”.
According to The Australian a “senior government source said there was no evidence the word ‘c’ment’ was shorthand for commitment”. As a former Defence deputy secretary, I can assure readers that heads of departments don’t attend meetings between ministers and non-government groups unless they are consequential. Secretaries take notes or get others to do that to protect their position. Senate documents show the “quick readout” note from the 10am June 13, 2025, meeting between Burke and Tinkler was circulated to Home Affairs senior staff at 10.57 the same morning.
The department was putting a top priority on enabling the government’s “no assistance” strategy. A letter dated August 15, 2025, from Save the Children to Burke and Foreign Minister Penny Wong is attached to the “quick readout” note. Marked “private and confidential”, it is headed “Urgent request for assistance with travel documents”.
A key paragraph in this letter of about five or six lines is blacked-out, followed by the words “We assume that the government’s usual process will be followed in these circumstances”. Then there is a nine-page attachment described as a “List of individuals to be repatriated” that is blacked out.
To sum up: the jihadi brides have returned. The government will not tell us how that happened, how many are in Australia, nor their ages, or provide information about their children. They will not reveal their locations or any details about security considerations.
Much of this information will become public in due course. With so many agencies involved, absolute secrecy is impossible to sustain.
Officials are being squeezed between abetting the government’s disinformation and meeting the Senate’s requirement for openness. The parliament’s Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Committees tells officials they must “provide full and accurate information to the parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration”.
Moreover, officials must be “thoroughly prepared for hearings”. It is painful to watch officials claim in Senate hearing that they lack even the most basic recollections of meetings and ministerial directions on issues that are clearly top priorities. This situation is uncomfortable for officials, but their fundamental obligation is to the parliament, not to a minister’s political strategy.
Denying the public access to information is the hallmark of Anthony Albanese’s government. Reports are withheld or released in such a way that informed comment is unavailable.
Making submissions to government inquiries now comes with the requirement to accept a nondisclosure agreement. Officials are constrained to taking questions “on notice”, which means that public hearings are painfully slow.
Material that should be open becomes classified on spurious security grounds and Freedom of Information access increasingly requires payment. Ministers shamelessly refuse to answer simple and direct questions.
The Albanese government’s instinct is secrecy. Eventually the details of the jihadi repatriations will emerge. The real question is how long voters will tolerate a government that treats openness as a threat rather than an obligation.
More Coverage
The Albanese government insists it played no role in the return of women who willingly left Australia to join Islamic State. Yet after a week of Senate hearings and document releases, the evidence shows the opposite. This threatens community cohesion, enables a possible threat to domestic security and undermines open government.