Key Takeaways
- The Australian government has issued a temporary exclusion order (TEO) that bars a specific ISIS‑linked woman from returning to Australia, even if Syria deports her.
- While she retains Australian citizenship, the order effectively places her in legal limbo, preventing her from boarding any flight destined for Australia.
- Her child, also an Australian citizen, is not covered by the TEO, creating a dilemma: stay together in Syria or separate the child for repatriation with other family members.
- Legal experts say challenging the TEO is difficult unless an administrative error or flawed security advice can be demonstrated.
- Humanitarian advocates argue the order ignores Australia’s duty to protect innocent children and merely shifts responsibility to Syria.
Background
A group of Australian women and children linked to the Islamic State have been living in the al‑Roj detention camp in Syria for approximately seven years. Over recent weeks, the majority of the so‑called “ISIS brides” and their dependents have left the camp, with four women and nine children already repatriated to Australia earlier this month. Upon arrival, three of the women were arrested, two facing charges of crimes against humanity related to enslavement and one charged with entering a terrorist zone. The remaining seven women and fourteen children departed the camp late in the week and arrived in Damascus, marking the first time no Australians remain housed in al‑Roj.
The Temporary Exclusion Order
In February, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke imposed a temporary exclusion order (TEO) on one of the women still in Syria. The order was based on advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which assessed that the individual poses a risk of engaging in or supporting terrorism, or of providing politically motivated violence. Unlike a citizenship revocation, the TEO does not render the woman stateless; she retains her Australian passport and citizenship. However, the order flags her as inadmissible to Australia, meaning that if she attempts to purchase a ticket to any Australian destination, airlines will be notified and she will be refused passage—most likely at a transit hub such as Doha or directly in Damascus.
Legal and Practical Implications
Government sources confirm that, under the TEO, the woman cannot legally enter Australia. A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained that “in practice, a person with a [temporary exclusion order] will not be allowed onto a plane whose destination is Australia.” The order is therefore effective even if Syrian authorities decide to deport her; she would be stopped before boarding. The single‑entry passport issued by Australia for her potential travel elsewhere remains ambiguous—officials have not clarified whether it could be used for travel to any third country.
Family Situation and Dilemma
The woman’s child, also an Australian citizen, is not subject to the TEO. This creates a stark choice: remain in Syria with her child, effectively trapping both in a limbo that could last up to two years (or longer if the government issues a new exclusion order), or send the child to Australia with the other repatriated women and children while she stays behind. Family advocates argue that the mother is unlikely to abandon her child, meaning both would likely remain in Syria indefinitely. They also note that the Australian government has not offered consular assistance to those already in the camp, suggesting it would similarly decline to help someone stranded in an airport in a “relatively safe part of the world.”
Government Stance
When asked whether the government might reconsider and allow the woman to return subject to conditions such as a terrorism control order or electronic surveillance, a government source dismissed the idea, stating, “I’m not sure what leverage the families think they have.” The source added that the TEO was not a negotiable measure and that the government would not engage in discussions about conditional entry. Minister Burke originally justified the order by noting that the woman migrated to Australia under the Howard government, gained citizenship, and traveled to Syria during the Abbott administration. He expressed confidence that her country of birth would not recognise her Australian citizenship should she attempt to return there.
Legal Expert Opinions
Don Rothwell, an international law professor at the Australian National University, described the woman’s situation as “completely unknown legal territory,” noting that this is the first time a TEO of this nature would be tested. Rothwell observed that the best legal outcome would be for the order to be lifted. While a legal challenge is theoretically possible, he cautioned that success would hinge on proving an administrative error by the minister or a flaw in the security advice underpinning the ASIO assessment. Absent such irregularities, the prospect of overturning the TEO appears limited. The woman’s lawyer has not responded to inquiries about pursuing a challenge or applying for a “return permit,” which would allow the minister to agree to her return under specific conditions.
Humanitarian Concerns
Save the Children chief executive Mat Tinkler criticised the TEO as an inadequate response that “kicks the can down the road.” He emphasised that two‑thirds of the individuals involved are children, many of whom have spent years living in tents within the detention camp. Tinkler argued that Australia’s robust security and legal systems are capable of managing any risk posed by the women, and that the order merely transfers responsibility to Syria without addressing Australia’s fundamental obligations to protect its citizen children. He urged policymakers to focus on the welfare of the children rather than becoming preoccupied solely with the mothers’ alleged offenses.
Conclusion
The case illustrates the tension between national security imperatives and humanitarian duties. While the Australian government maintains that the temporary exclusion order is necessary to prevent potential terrorist activity, critics argue that it creates an unjust limbo for a citizen and her child, contravening Australia’s responsibility to protect minors. Unless a demonstrable error in the order’s issuance can be identified, the woman is likely to remain excluded from Australia, leaving her family to navigate an uncertain future in Syria. The situation underscores the need for clearer policies that balance security concerns with the rights and welfare of Australian citizens, particularly children, affected by overseas conflict.