The Australian government has introduced new regulations granting the Home Affairs and Immigration Minister the authority to refuse passports to individuals suspected of involvement in state-sponsored terrorism, nearly six months after designating the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign sponsor of violence. The rules, quietly enacted less than two weeks ago, allow Minister Tony Burke to deny passports to people he believes, on reasonable grounds, may engage in conduct punishable under state terrorism laws.
The decision to implement these passport refusal powers came after the IRGC was formally listed as a state sponsor of terrorism in November 2023, a move that followed years of opposition pressure and came amid heightened diplomatic tensions between Australia and Iran. In August last year, Australia expelled the Iranian ambassador in response to Tehran’s alleged involvement in antisemitic attacks in Sydney and Melbourne.
Opposition home affairs spokesman Jonno Duniam has questioned the government’s rationale for the delay in establishing the passport safeguards. “If the government believed that [listing the IRGC] was serious enough, then why are key passport safeguards only being added months later?” Duniam said, demanding clarity on whether the lag was a delay, oversight, or rooted in a legitimate legal process.
The government has defended the timing of the rule changes as a standard part of legislative processes, stating that changes in one area of law often require subsequent regulatory adjustments. In a joint statement earlier this year, Minister Burke, Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong, and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland emphasized that listing the IRGC aimed to disrupt terrorist activities, make clear the criminality of certain dealings with the group, and serve as a warning to the public.
Despite these assurances, the opposition cautioned that the delay could have created security gaps. Duniam noted that Australians deserve to know whether any individuals linked to state-sponsored terrorism might have bypassed controls prior to the recent regulatory update. The concern arises amid broader national security debates, including recent controversy over the government’s processing of passport applications for Australian citizens known as “ISIS brides” returning from conflict zones, a matter the government says it managed in accordance with statutory obligations.
Senior opposition figure James Paterson has previously criticized the government for providing travel documents to individuals returning from extremist regions, stating they do not merit assistance from Australian authorities.
As the government maintains its stance that procedural and statutory obligations guided the timing and nature of these policy changes, opposition members continue to press for a fuller explanation regarding the delay between the IRGC’s designation and the deployment of reinforced passport controls.