The long road home for Australian ISIS families is finally underway, but the journey is shrouded in controversy and unanswered questions.
After years of living in a Syrian internment camp, a significant contingent of Australian women and children, formerly linked to the Islamic State, have begun their journey back to Australia. This development, confirmed late on Monday, February 16, 2026, marks a pivotal moment for these individuals and raises complex issues for the Australian government.
The group, consisting of 11 Australian families – totaling 34 women and children – departed a camp in northeastern Syria, heading towards the capital, Damascus. From there, their intended path is to travel to Beirut, and subsequently, to Australia. This departure comes nearly seven years after the collapse of the so-called Islamic caliphate in March 2019, the event that led to their internment.
But here's where it gets controversial... While Syrian officials indicated the families would make their way to Beirut to seek passports from the Australian embassy, the Australian government has vehemently denied any involvement in facilitating their departure. A spokesperson for Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke stated unequivocally that the Australian government "is not and will not repatriate people from Syria." This stance is consistent with previous government policy, which cited the extreme danger of sending Australian public servants into the volatile region as a reason for not directly arranging repatriations.
And this is the part most people miss... The Australian government's official position, however, is that it is legally obligated to issue passports to any citizen who manages to reach an Australian embassy abroad. This creates a peculiar situation where the government isn't actively bringing people back, but is prepared to assist those who make their own way home. "Our security agencies have been monitoring – and continue to monitor – the situation in Syria to ensure they are prepared for any Australians seeking to return to Australia," the spokesperson added. They also issued a stern warning: "People in this cohort need to know that if they have committed a crime and if they return to Australia they will be met with the full force of the law. The safety of Australians and the protection of Australia’s national interests remain the overriding priority."
Even Save The Children, a charity that has shown significant concern for the welfare of these Australians, has distanced itself from the operation. CEO Mat Tinkler clarified, "Save the Children does not fund or conduct repatriations, nor do we ever intend to play such a role." He further commented, "These reports underscore what national security experts have repeatedly said: that the unmanaged return of Australian citizens would inevitably happen in the absence of Federal Government action to repatriate them."
This latest group represents the remnants of many who travelled to Syria and Iraq during the height of ISIS rule. Previous repatriations have occurred, including eight orphans and one newborn in 2019 under the Morrison government, and more recently, in October 2022, four Australian women and their 13 children were brought back. Interestingly, none of those from 2022 were returned to Victoria, a detail that former Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo, suggested was influenced by state government preferences.
Given this history, it's probable that many of the individuals returning in this current group will be directed to Victoria. This follows a pattern where two women and four children previously escaped a different camp, al-Hawl, in September of last year, making their way to Australia via Lebanon, and they too were Victorians.
The camp director, Hakamia Ibrahim, confirmed that over 2,000 wives and children of former IS fighters, from 40 different nationalities, remain in the camp. This underscores the ongoing humanitarian challenge and the complex geopolitical landscape of the region.
So, what do you think? Is it the government's responsibility to actively repatriate these citizens, or should they only assist those who manage to reach an embassy? Does the potential threat these individuals pose outweigh their right to return to their home country? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
