The controversy surrounding Australia’s Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke’s handling of national security raises an awkward question: are we serious about security, or only serious when it is politically convenient?

Burke has warned that Pauline Hanson’s comments about Muslims carry a “national security angle” and risk inciting violence. Words, he argues, can make the job of security agencies harder. Yet in the same breath he assures Australians that authorities “know the state of mind” of the 34 women and children detained in the Syrian camp linked to Islamic State, and that thorough risk assessments have been undertaken.

That confidence is striking.

These individuals did not wander into a conflict zone by accident. Many travelled to join a terrorist organization that explicitly declared war on Australia and the West. ISIS was not coy about its aims. Nor were its methods. The world watched the beheadings. The black flags were not ambiguous.

Given that reality, why is the government not pursuing the strongest possible legal barriers to prevent their return? Parliament moved with impressive speed to strengthen hate-group legislation, including steps toward banning Hizb ut-Tahrir. Legislative urgency is clearly available when required. Why not apply it here?

If inflammatory speech constitutes a security risk, then voluntary association with a genocidal terror movement surely constitutes something greater. The number of Israeli visas that Tony Burke has cancelled last minute is mind blowing in comparison to any of this.

The opposition surely would support urgent legislative changes to ensure ISIS families do not return. If that support exists, what precisely is the hesitation? The power of injunction, the expansion of exclusion orders, or further statutory amendment are not radical inventions. They are tools available to a sovereign state that takes seriously its primary obligation, the protection of its citizens.

Public trust in blanket assurances is not enhanced by recent events. The antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach during Hanukkah demonstrated that ideological hatred can translate into violence on Australian soil. Intelligence work is indispensable but it is not infallible. Risk assessments are judgments, not guarantees. When the cost of error is mass casualty terrorism, the acceptable margin for miscalculation narrows dramatically.

Burke insists authorities “know the state of mind” of those detained abroad. Perhaps they do. But intelligence agencies assess probabilities, not certainties. The consequences of being wrong in this instance would not be administrative embarrassment. They would be borne in blood.

There is also an obvious asymmetry in how rhetoric is treated. When Pauline Hanson speaks, it is framed as a national security threat. When Grace Tame invokes the language of “intifada”, historically associated with violent uprising, there is no equivalent ministerial lecture about the security implications of words. If speech can inflame, it does so regardless of the speaker’s political alignment.

A useful litmus test presents itself. If Burke were to exhaust every exclusion power, seek injunctions and legislate further if necessary to prevent the return of ISIS-aligned individuals, criticism would predictably come from parts of the progressive crossbench. Should Mehreen Faruqi declare that the government has “gone too far” in tightening national security settings, many Australians would interpret that not as a warning sign, but as confirmation that firmness has finally prevailed over sentiment.

The average Australian is not naïve. They do not imagine families emerging from ISIS-controlled territory are arriving with Syria’s finest cupcake recipes. The concern is not caricature. It is about indoctrination, trauma and ideological formation in formative years. Even if some of these children are themselves victims of their parents’ decisions, the security implications of deep extremist conditioning cannot be brushed aside with administrative reassurance.

None of this constitutes what Anthony Albanese likes to dismiss as “far-right rhetoric.” It is not ideological theatre. It is not culture war posturing. It is an assessment grounded in what Islamist movements have demonstrably done in Syria, across Europe, and in acts of terror that have touched Australia itself. Recognizing that pattern is not extremism. It is realism.

Government exists first to secure its citizens. Seeking comprehensive injunctions, exhausting exclusion powers and, if necessary, amending legislation to prevent the return of those who aligned themselves with a terrorist organization would not be cruelty. It would be prudence. Do not play roulette with the lives of Australians.

Terrorism must never be normalized in Australia. If rhetoric can endanger the public, allegiance to a terrorist movement must be treated as an even graver matter. Consistency, seriousness and an unapologetic prioritization of public safety are not radical demands. They are the minimum expectations of a sovereign state.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)