John Warhurst | Return of Islamic State families shows compassion we need to see more

The first group of returnees included four women and their 15 children. Eventually about 60 women and children will be rescued from a displaced persons camp and repatriated. The women were partners of Islamic State combatants.

The federal government has done what the previous government, for various reasons, would not do. Despite lobbying by their supporters and family members in Australia, the previous government claimed that not only would these women and children be a security risk if they returned to Australia, but it would be too dangerous to try to extract them from the Syrian camp. Australian personnel would be endangered. There was also an implicit element of they have got what they deserved.

The whole exercise has been wrapped in secrecy and national security advice to which we are not privy. This secrecy has surrounded not just their extraction from Syria but also their arrival in Sydney. The federal government clearly wants as little publicity as possible. That hope has not been fulfilled because the event has become politicised along partisan and other lines.

The position of the federal government and its supporters has been a compassionate one. It was a compassionate decision because the women and children were unsafe in the squalid conditions in the camp.

They were Australian citizens who, despite the crimes of their husbands and fathers and maybe their own radicalisation, deserved to be returned to the safety of their homeland. The Save the Children group, a well-established Australian charity, concluded that they must be returned to Australia to ensure their safety.

The federal government is extremely cautious and has not trumpeted the operation despite many Australians being pleased with the outcome. According to the Home Affairs Minister, Clare O'Neil, the focus of the government has always been on the security of all Australians and the security of those who undertook the operation in Syria.

What Australia has done, however, was not groundbreaking. We are a laggard in international terms. Many other countries, including the USA, the UK and France, had already rescued their citizens in the same situation.

Those who have returned were subject to individual clearance by our security services. They are effectively in custody until arrangements are put in place. Their families have reiterated that they are willing to be monitored and treated, if necessary, in whatever way the governments, federal and state, think appropriate.

This has not been enough for the critics. The opposition home affairs spokesperson, Karen Andrews, was unforgiving. It was inexcusable, she said, that the Albanese government is putting Australian lives at risk. This official opposition position is a combination of principle and politics.

They see the government decision as a slap in the face to the Morrison government, much like the decision to drop charges against national security whistleblowers like Bernard Collaery and to grant citizenship to asylum seekers like the Nadesalingam family from Biloela.

The critics' politics comes from a particular reading of the fears of the Australian community. These are not the specific fears of those immigrant communities whose home countries and peoples have suffered most at the hands of ISIS.

These worries are perfectly understandable, but should not be inflamed by rhetoric but rather calmed by community leaders and politicians. Ultimately, they will not carry much political weight outside relatively small geographical areas.

What matters more are the general fears and desire for retribution in the wider community against anyone even indirectly associated with ISIS and terrorism. The federal opposition may not be alone in recognising the existence of such fears. The Victorian Deputy Premier, Jacinta Allen, wants no association of Melbourne with the returning families until after the state election later this month.

Her stubborn refusal to engage with the issue shows the continued unwillingness of governments and political parties to leave themselves open to any charge of being soft on terrorism or weak on security.

If a security incident does eventuate from any of the returnees, the opposition has positioned itself to claim vindication and to take political advantage.

READ MORE:

There is a bigger picture for the opposition strategists to consider, however. Opposing the compassionate return of ISIS families is another individual decision among others that collectively makes it harder for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Coalition parties to claim the middle ground at the next election.

Their stance looks backward rather than forward. It probably appeals more to voters in the western suburbs rather than in the leafy suburbs. That is short-sighted for the opposition as it seeks to return to government.

This political discussion and any associated legal contributions should not overshadow the wider community discussion. It is up to the Australian community to decide where it stands and to declare itself.

We should want to be recognised as a compassionate nation. Previous government decisions, like the treatment of some citizens and non-citizens during the COVID border closures, have not shown enough compassion.

Community leaders should be encouraged to speak up. We should all always lean towards compassion and doing the right thing over the temptation towards fear and self-interest.