The Hon Anthony Albanese MP,
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister,
I write to you on behalf of the executive of the QCCL to express its dismay at the government’s approach to the Australian families in Syria.
As we understand it, the government acknowledges, at the very least by issuing them with passports, that they are citizens of this country.
Citizenship is a person’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. A stateless person has no lawful claims to protection from any nation, and no nation may assert rights on their behalf.
Furthermore, citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehaviour. The citizen who fails to pay his or her taxes or bribes a politician or public servant deals a blow to their country. But could a citizen be deprived of her nationality for violating these basic norms of citizenship? The deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon the government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct however reprehensible that conduct may be. As long as a person does not voluntarily renounce or abandon her citizenship they are entitled to its benefits
Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country at war with Australia clearly signals your intention to renounce your citizenship. The mothers are entitled to the presumption of innocence and protection of the family under article 23 of the ICCPR, irrespective of what some may view as their error of judgement in relocating to Syria with their husbands
The worst that might be alleged against some of these women[1] is that they supported a terrorist group. Such an activity, even if proven, is not in our view an unambiguous indication of a person's intention. Citizenship is about your nationality. The decision to renounce your citizenship must involve conduct connected with another nation state.
If citizenship means anything it is the right to return home. The old High Court case Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 contains support for such a right at Common Law (at least) per Griffith CJ at 289 -291, Barton J 293-4 and O’Connor J 303-4
A 1988 case Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 462; in which the High Court unanimously struck down a tax on people arriving in the country is seen by many scholars as supporting such a right, but others disagree.[2]
But there is no doubt about it from the point of view of international human rights law -article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
We further note that on the 18th of February this year Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed that one of the abovementioned Australians had been issued with a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) following advice from Australia's security agencies that permitting this person to return would present an unacceptable risk.
Such a law is of course inconsistent with the above principles. That said we make the following submission on her situation.
QCCL is not aware of whether this woman has applied for a return permit pursuant to s.15(1) of the Counter -Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 (CT TEO Act). If this person has not yet applied for a return permit, then QCCL urges you to promptly request the Home Affairs Minister to exercise his discretion to issue a return permit pursuant to s. 15(2) of the CT TEO Act to this person which we submit it is appropriate for him to do so.
QCCL further notes that under s.16(1) of the CT TEO Act the Minister may impose one or more conditions in either or both of subsection (9) pre-entry conditions and subsection (10) post-entry conditions on a return permit. In the circumstances we have outlined above and below we respectfully submit that this woman should only be subject to post -entry conditions that for the purposes of one more of (a), (b), (c) and (d) of s16 (3) of the CT TEO Act taken together are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted.
The 34 Australian citizens have been held in the Al-Roj detention camp situated in Northeastern Syria since 2019 in squalid conditions. The children in this group are from any perspective utterly blameless and innocent.
QCCL respectfully submits that the Australian Government by taking compassionate and humane action concerning these citizens is not inimical to our country's national interests. Rather by undertaking the measures outlined above Australia will demonstrate that it faithfully abides by the Rule of Law when protecting the rights of its citizens no matter how unpalatable or unfavourable these appear.
Please find enclosed "Public Sector Guidance Sheet concerning the Rights of parents and children" published by the Attorney General's Department for your consideration when reviewing our letter. The information set out in this document gives credence to our submissions.
We would be grateful to receive your response at your earliest convenience
[1] As reported by Anna Henderson ASIO head Mike Burgess, as recently as 23/2/26, has said his organisation has no concerns about some of the women.
Late Night Live : Anna Henderson's Canberra, and Helen Clark on the UN's missing senior women, 23 Feb 2026 https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/late-night-live-full-program-podcast/id73330961?i=1000751017399
[2] The most unambiguous statement by a High Court Judge in favour of this idea as a constitutional right is that of Edelman J in Love v Commonwealth (Matter No B43 Of 2018) (2020) 375 ALR 597 at [391]