Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of One Nation) (09:01): I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Australians rightfully expect this government to put their safety and our national security above all else.
The Albanese Labor government has failed to meet this expectation. Since this government took office, 15 women linked to the listed terrorist organisation Islamic State, or ISIS, have returned to Australia. Two face terrorism and slavery charges and have been released into the community on bail.
This government says it offered no assistance to bring these people home, but we know the government met with lobbyists campaigning for their return. Records and handwritten notes of that meeting indicate the minister discussed how a return could be achieved without a formal government undertaking. They indicated he thanked those lobbyists for keeping the matter out of the media.
They indicated a departmental official was asked to leave the room so there could be a frank discussion. We do not know what was said after that official walked out. We do not know what was promised.
We do not know whether a pathway was agreed for the return of others. What we do know is this: the minister blocked the last of these women on national security grounds. A short time later, he issued her a permit to return.
His explanation was that the law gave him no choice. That's not good enough. Australians know that isn't good enough.
If the minister genuinely believes the law stops him from keeping Australians safe, his job is not to shrug and accept it. His job and the parliament's job is to come into this place and change it. Labor has not acted to keep Australians safe, so it has fallen on One Nation to change the law.
This bill does exactly that. One Nation is acting where Labor has failed to act. Let's not lose sight of what we are dealing with here.
Islamic State horrified the world. It enslaved thousands of people. It burned captives alive and filmed it.
Individuals who left Australia to join this organisation celebrated these acts and actively took part in them. Thirteen of them are reported to have been held in prison in Baghdad. They include Tareq Kamleh, otherwise known as Dr Jihad, who appeared in ISIS propaganda videos urging others to travel to ISIS-held territory or to wage jihad elsewhere.
It is reported that Dr Jihad and others who served ISIS may soon be released from custody and may seek to return to Australia. This bill gives Australia stronger, lawful tools to protect the community. Schedule 1 creates a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order.
The Minister for Home Affairs may apply to the Federal Court for one. The court may make the order only if it is satisfied of three things: that the person while outside Australia voluntarily served with, participated in the activities of, or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Australian community if allowed to enter; and that no less restrictive measure would be effective to protect the community from that risk.
The protection of the Australian community is a paramount consideration. Entering Australia in breach of one of these orders carries 10 years imprisonment. While that case is being prepared and run, the minister's obligation to issue a return permit is suspended.
That suspension is kept at 90 days unless the application is actually filed with the court, and it cannot be recycled on the same matter. Schedule 2 deals with the bail. Where a person is charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence, the protection of the community and national security become the paramount considerations.
A bail authority cannot find exceptional circumstances unless it is also satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of the person committing a terrorism offence. Child care, family circumstances, the offer of somewhere to live or an ankle bracelet will not on their own get an alleged terrorist out on bail. Schedule 3 deals with passports.
The minister will be able to refuse, cancel or suspend an Australian travel document where an exclusion order is in force, where a determination to apply for one is in force or where the person has been charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. Those four grounds are written into the act. They cannot be added to by regulation.
Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate bringing a foreign terrorist fighter into Australia without the prior written permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs. The penalty is 10 years. Schedule 4 also extends the declared areas offence, which is due to sunset in September next year through to 2030.
Let me deal directly with the objection I expect to hear, which is that this hands too much power to a minister. It does not. The minister cannot make one of these orders; only the Federal Court can.
The minister must prove their case on evidence before a judge, and the court decides. An order runs for a maximum of two years. There is no administrative renewal.
If the minister wants it longer, the minister goes back to the court and proves every element again on current evidence. The person can apply to the court at any time to have the order varied or revoked. If the court finds that a controlled return under strict permit conditions would protect the community, that is the path that must be taken.
Where a person is being deported, extradited or transferred home as a prisoner, the order gives way. The order only reaches people who act voluntarily. Someone who was coerced, held under duress or trafficked is not caught by it.
Where the person is under 18, the court must treat their best interests as a primary consideration. Decisions are made on current advice from our national security agencies. Sensitive material is handled under the established national security information framework, and the minister must report the operation of the scheme to this parliament every year.
This is a protective scheme. It is directed at the risk a person presents today, not at what they deserve. These are measures the minister could have legislated himself while he was secretly meeting with lobbyists who wanted these terrorists back on Australian soil.
So I say this to the government: if the law truly tied your hands, here is the bill that unties them. The minister has said this bill is unconstitutional. This is just another excuse.
The minister had not seen the bill when he made those comments. The minister has refused to release his supposed legal advice. Commentary from prominent legal experts and others, including the former secretary of the department, indicates this bill addresses prior constitutional concerns.
At the end of the day, only the High Court, not the minister or this Labor government, can determine if laws are unconstitutional. Australians are sick of the excuses of this government. They are sick of this government passing the buck on protecting the community from terrorism.
I say this to every senator in this chamber: when a person leaves this country to serve an organisation that enslaved thousands and burned prisoners alive and then decides they would like to come home, someone has to be put first. Either it is them or it is the Australians who never left. One Nation puts Australians first.
There was a Senate inquiry response to this. The committee wants the Senate to reject my Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I say the committee has got it wrong.
The committee says existing temporary exclusion orders are enough. Those orders only delay and manage a terrorist fighter's return. My bill allows the Federal Court to keep the most dangerous foreign fighters out.
This is not a minister making a decision behind closed doors. The minister must go to the Federal Court and prove that the person voluntarily served, joined or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that they pose an unacceptable risk to Australians; and that no lesser measure will keep the public safe. The court makes the decision.
The court assesses the risk. Orders are time limited and can be reviewed, changed or revoked. There are extra protections for minors.
These are strong safeguards. The committee talks about constitutional concerns as though the High Court has already struck this bill down. Not one submitter gave a definitive opinion that the bill would be invalid.
Constitutional questions deserve proper scrutiny, but a possible argument is not a finding of invalidity. If the government says a provision is defective, it should identify it, explain why it is and propose an amendment. It did none of those things.
The government refused to make a submission to the inquiry. Then, when the Senate ordered it to produce the advice behind its claim that stronger exclusion laws would be knocked over by the High Court, the government handed over—guess what—a media article. This was to the committee.
They handed over, as their evidence, a media article. There is another problem the committee avoids. The government has pursued the return of ISIS linked women while resisting strong laws to keep dangerous foreign fighters out.
The Minister for Home Affairs held a private meeting with advocates, asked an official to leave and continued a frank discussion without an official record. Australians are entitled to ask whose interests this government is protecting. My bill closes a real gap.
Temporary exclusion orders manage a person's return. My bill deals with the worst cases of people the Federal Court finds are too dangerous to return because no lesser measure can protect Australians. The committee assumes every risk can be managed with monitoring and conditions after arrival.
That is reckless—absolutely reckless. Parliament should not wait for a preventable attack before acting. This bill also sends a clear warning: if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation, you may not be allowed back.
Didn't we hear those words from our former prime ministers—'If you leave this country to go and fight over there, you will not be allowed back in'? Well, how true were they? Not at all—because that's what's happened; they've come back.
So you can't trust the words of these so-called governments. I don't care if it's the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the Nationals; you can't trust what they tell you. That's why we need a bill to protect Australians.
This bill also sends a clear warning that if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation you may not be allowed back. This is a consequence people should understand before they make that choice. The committee also gives too little weight to the Yazidi organisations and survivor committees who gave evidence.
They know what Islamic State did. Their concerns are based on the murder, slavery and terror inflicted by that organisation. The bill also strengthens bail laws for terrorism offences and targets people who knowingly organise or assist the return of terrorist linked persons.
Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. One bad bail decision can cost innocent lives. The committee has not proved that this bill is unconstitutional.
It has not proved that the existing laws can deal with the highest-risk foreign fighters. It has not offered a better plan. It has simply told the Senate to do nothing.
That is not good enough. Australians expect us to stop dangerous terrorists before they reach our shores, not manage the consequences after they arrive. The Senate should reject the committee's recommendation and pass this bill.
I warn you, if any of you choose not to support this bill, every Australian has the right to condemn you as an accessory to murder if any one of these ISIS fighters commits an act of terrorism that inevitably takes innocent lives. Who are you protecting? Where is your true allegiance?