Australia’s First Duty Is to Keep Australians Safe

National security is the first responsibility of government. The Kamleh case asks whether Australia is living up to that principle.

A government’s foremost responsibility is to protect its citizens. Every decision about who may enter or remain in Australia should begin with that principle. Humanitarian considerations are important, but they cannot override the government’s obligation to safeguard the public and maintain confidence in our institutions.

The debate over whether Dr Tareq Kamleh should ever be allowed to return to Australia is therefore about more than one individual. It is about whether public safety remains the government’s overriding consideration in matters involving terrorism.

Dr Kamleh was not an innocent bystander caught in a conflict. He voluntarily travelled to Syria in 2015 to join the Islamic State (ISIS), a terrorist organisation responsible for mass murder, brutal beheadings, torture, enslavement, and acts of genocide. He appeared in ISIS propaganda videos encouraging support for the organisation while presenting himself as a medical doctor. Australian authorities have since laid terrorism-related charges against him, and he remains wanted in connection with those offences.

The danger posed by ISIS ideology is not theoretical. Australia has experienced its consequences firsthand. Following the December 2025 Bondi Beach terrorist attack, authorities alleged the perpetrators had pledged allegiance to ISIS, and investigators reportedly found ISIS flags in their vehicle. That attack served as a stark reminder that violent Islamist extremism continues to pose a genuine threat to Australia’s national security. It is against that backdrop that any decision involving an individual who voluntarily joined ISIS must be assessed.

These are not trivial matters. They go to the heart of whether someone has demonstrated allegiance to values fundamentally incompatible with Australia’s democratic society.

Equally concerning is the government’s apparent lack of preparedness. If Australian authorities, including Foreign Minister Penny Wong and the Albanese Government, had known for some time that Dr Kamleh intended to return, it is reasonable to ask why no clear plan was in place to manage the national security risks involved.

Ministers have stated that the government would not assist his return. However, given the handling of previous ISIS-related cases, many Australians remain sceptical of those assurances and continue to question whether the government’s approach gives sufficient priority to public safety.

The seriousness of this case is heightened by Dr Kamleh’s position as a medical professional. Australians rightly expect doctors to be committed to preserving life. The medical profession is founded on ethical principles of compassion, care, and the duty to do no harm. Society places extraordinary trust in medical practitioners because they are expected to value every human life equally, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or political belief.

When a doctor voluntarily associates with an organisation that glorified martyrdom, celebrated mass killing, beheaded Westerners, and systematically targeted innocent civilians, it inevitably raises profound questions about whether that person has abandoned the ethical foundations of the medical profession. Whatever later explanations or expressions of regret may be offered, many Australians will question whether such conduct is compatible with the responsibilities entrusted to a doctor.

Australia’s legal and democratic traditions have been shaped by many influences, including Judeo-Christian principles that recognise the inherent dignity and value of every human life. While Australia is a secular and multicultural nation, its laws continue to reflect the belief that innocent life deserves protection, violence should be rejected, and justice should prevail over extremism.

These principles are not exclusive to Christianity or Judaism. They are shared by Australians of many faiths and backgrounds and remain deeply embedded in our legal system, medical ethics, and understanding of human rights.

This is not an argument against migration, nor is it directed against any religion or ethnic community. Millions of Australians from every background have embraced our democratic institutions, respected the rule of law, and enriched our nation. The overwhelming majority reject violent extremism and support peaceful coexistence.

The issue is whether someone who voluntarily joined one of history’s most brutal terrorist organisations should be permitted to return to Australia after publicly lending that organisation credibility through propaganda. Governments routinely refuse entry to individuals whose presence is considered contrary to the national interest. It is reasonable to ask why someone with this history should be treated differently.

Keeping Australians safe is not merely a political slogan; it is a government’s primary responsibility. Decisions involving individuals with documented associations with terrorist organisations should be guided first by national security and by maintaining public confidence in the integrity of Australia’s borders and institutions.

Reasonable people may differ on questions of law, citizenship, and due process. The central question, however, is whether Australia’s laws provide adequate protection against the risks posed by individuals who voluntarily joined a terrorist organisation.

Australia’s immigration and national security laws should be judged by whether they adequately protect the public. Many Australians find it difficult to reconcile the fact that some foreign visitors and public figures have faced visa cancellations, delays, or exclusion over controversial political statements, while an Australian citizen who voluntarily joined ISIS, appeared in its propaganda, and now faces terrorism-related charges may nevertheless retain a legal right to return under Australia’s citizenship laws.

If the law prevents the government from adequately protecting Australians from individuals who willingly joined a terrorist organisation dedicated to violence and death, then Parliament should consider whether it remains fit for purpose. Where constitutionally possible, it should be amended.

This should not be a partisan issue. Terrorism does not discriminate between Labor and Liberal, left and right, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist. Political leaders should be prepared to work together to ensure that national security receives the priority it requires and that any legal weaknesses affecting public safety are addressed with bipartisan resolve.

Australians expect their government to recognise warning signs, respond decisively to emerging threats, and place public safety above all other considerations. If governments fail to act when credible risks are identified, public confidence is inevitably weakened. Australians are entitled to ask whether enough has been done to address those risks before they become tragedies. Stop playing roulette with the lives of those you have been entrusted to protect. It really is that simple.