Should Australians Linked to Terrorist Groups Be Stopped from Coming Home?
The Coalition, including opposition leader Angus Taylor and Nationals leader Matt Canavan, will support a bill from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party that aims to stop Australian citizens with ties to overseas terrorist groups from returning to Australia. The Guardian
The bill was scheduled to be introduced in the Australian Senate on a Wednesday. Two senior Coalition lawmakers, Ted O'Brien and Jonno Duniam, offered to help Hanson shape the legislation. Duniam said the Coalition wants the bill sent to a Senate committee — a group of lawmakers who study proposed laws in detail — so legal experts can review it before any vote takes place.
Hanson first unveiled the 22-page bill in late July, ahead of parliament returning on 11 August. It would create a new type of court order called a "foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order." The federal court would issue these orders at the request of the home affairs minister. The bill would also make it easier to cancel someone's Australian passport and would create new punishments for anyone who helps a person with terrorist links return to the country. The Australian
The politics behind this are complicated. Canavan said on Tuesday that the Nationals would work with One Nation on the bill, even though he had previously promised to push back against Hanson's growing popularity. At the same time, the Coalition is preparing a separate policy to significantly cut immigration numbers, part of a broader push to tighten borders that started before this particular collaboration. The Guardian
The government's response is blunt. Home affairs minister Tony Burke said last month that Hanson's plan "would last about 30 seconds in the high court" — meaning Australia's top court would likely strike it down for being unconstitutional. A constitutional law expert separately said the bill's approach would not work. SMH
Burke's objection is not only about the law. He argued that Australian citizens blocked from coming home could be more dangerous overseas, because Australian security agencies cannot keep watch on them there. In other words, the government worries the bill could make Australia less safe, not more safe.
The Albanese government recently used existing powers to temporarily stop an Australian woman linked to Islamic State from returning home. But it admitted it cannot permanently block citizens from entering the country. That gap between what the government can do now (temporarily keep someone out) and what Hanson's bill tries to do (permanently keep someone out) is the core issue at the heart of this debate.
The bill faces long odds. It would not be debated in the House of Representatives — the lower house of parliament — unless Labor agrees to let it proceed, which is considered very unlikely. One Nation and the Coalition moved forward with their proposals despite not having enough votes to pass them, which suggests the effort is as much about sending a political message as about changing the law. ABC
Parliamentary records show this debate has a history. A record from 3 March 2026 notes a disagreement over whether any foreign fighters returned to Australia during the Morrison government, with one side saying none did and the other saying two did. APH Hansard Senate records from July 2019 describe earlier plans for managing returning foreign fighters and One Nation's strong support for security legislation at that time. APH Hansard
The biggest problem for the bill is the constitution. Australia already has a law that lets the home affairs minister ask a court to temporarily stop a citizen from returning for up to two years. Hanson's bill would make that ban permanent. Legal experts and the government say this conflicts with a core constitutional principle: Australian citizens cannot be denied the right to enter their own country. The High Court has never directly ruled on permanently barring citizens, but the government is confident such a law would fail based on existing legal principles about citizenship.
The broader context here is a shift in how opposition parties handle national security. The Coalition chose to back a One Nation bill rather than write its own version, showing a willingness to work through minor parties on tough security issues. If the Senate committee review goes ahead, the bill would get a formal hearing and public scrutiny of its legal design, even if it eventually goes nowhere in the lower house. Whether that review happens, and what legal experts tell the committee about whether the bill is constitutional, will determine whether this effort becomes law or stays a political statement.
