Too broad and poorly drafted
Murray Watt said the bill was poorly drafted, ill conceived and broad enough to expose people such as commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers, clergy and regional allies to criminal liability.
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe)
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Law, justice & rights
What does this bill do?
The bill would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to create a new offence for organising or facilitating another person's entry into Australia from overseas in specified terrorism-related circumstances.
Why was it introduced?
Senator Duniam introduced the bill for the Opposition in response to what he described as self-managed returns by Australians associated with Islamic State or declared areas. The explanatory memorandum says the aim was to require Commonwealth authorisation before third parties organise or facilitate the entry into Australia of people who have engaged in terrorism-related conduct, intend to do so before entry, or are or have been members of terrorist organisations.
Broader context
The bill sat inside a wider national-security and border-control debate about Australians in camps in Syria, terrorism-related risk, ministerial accountability and humanitarian obligations. Coalition and One Nation senators framed the proposal as a way to stop non-government actors facilitating returns without ministerial approval. Labor and Greens senators opposed it, with Labor arguing the drafting was too broad and Greens senators arguing it would criminalise help for women and children in conflict-zone camps.
Key criticism
Critics argued the bill was not a workable national-security measure. Labor said it was drafted too broadly and could catch commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers, clergy and allies in the region, while the Greens argued it was unconstitutional and would criminalise assistance to Australian women and children in Syrian camps.
Who supported it?
Senator Jonathon Duniam introduced this bill. It was supported by Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, UAP; opposed by Labor, Greens, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Introduced in Senate 03 Mar 2026
Defeated at second reading in Senate 01 Apr 2026
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
29 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to create a new offence for organising or facilitating another person's entry into Australia from overseas in specified terrorism-related circumstances.
-
The proposed offence would apply where the other person had engaged in conduct constituting a terrorism offenceFor this bill, the term uses the meaning in the Crimes Act 1914 and is used to decide when the proposed facilitation offence could apply. or the declared-area offence, where the facilitator knew the person intended to do so before entry, or where the other person was or had been a member of a terrorist organisationAn organisation covered by Division 102 of the Criminal Code. The proposed offence could apply where the person being helped to enter Australia is or has been a member of such an organisation..
-
The offence would not apply if the organising or facilitation was done by a Commonwealth authorityA Commonwealth government body. The bill's new offence would not apply to conduct done by, or on behalf of, a Commonwealth authority., on behalf of a Commonwealth authorityA Commonwealth government body. The bill's new offence would not apply to conduct done by, or on behalf of, a Commonwealth authority., or with prior written permissionThe bill's proposed exception where both the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Home Affairs Minister have authorised the organising or facilitation before it happens. from both the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Home Affairs Minister.
-
The maximum penalty for the proposed offence would be 10 years imprisonment.
-
The bill would also extend the sunset dates for the declared-area offence and related provision from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030.
-
The Senate negatived the second reading on 1 April 2026 by 34 noes to 26 ayes, so the bill did not proceed and no final Act or passed bill text was collected.
Show source excerpts
-
A person (the first person) commits an offence if: (a) the first person organises or facilitates the entry of another person (the other person) into Australia from a foreign country
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) introduced bill text -
the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence against subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code (entering or remaining in a declared area) or another terrorism offence
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) explanatory memorandum -
Subsection (1) does not apply if the first person organises or facilitates the entry in accordance with the prior written permission of: (a) the Foreign Affairs Minister; and (b) the Home Affairs Minister.
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) introduced bill text -
Penalty: 10 years.
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) introduced bill text -
The Bill also extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030.
Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) explanatory memorandum -
DIVISION:NOES 34 (8 majority) AYES 26 ... Question negatived.
Senate division on second reading
Context
Broader context for this bill
The bill sat inside a wider national-security and border-control debate about Australians in camps in Syria, terrorism-related risk, ministerial accountability and humanitarian obligations. Coalition and One Nation senators framed the proposal as a way to stop non-government actors facilitating returns without ministerial approval. Labor and Greens senators opposed it, with Labor arguing the drafting was too broad and Greens senators arguing it would criminalise help for women and children in conflict-zone camps.
- 19 Dec 2025
Bondi attack shaped the national-security debate
Collected public-context reporting records the Government's response after the Bondi terrorist attack, including gun-law and antisemitism-related measures. The bill's Senate speeches repeatedly referred to the attack as part of the wider security context.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 17 Jan 2026
Government hate-speech and gun-law response split
Collected reporting said the Prime Minister separated gun reforms from the broader Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 after the Greens and Coalition would not support the package in its current form.
Australian Financial Review ↗ - 03 Mar 2026
Duniam introduced the bill in the Senate
The bill was introduced as a private senator's billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it on behalf of the government. APH lists this bill as a private bill sponsored by Senator Jonathon Duniam. and the second reading was moved. Duniam's incorporated speech said the bill was intended to require national-government authorisation for returns involving people associated with terrorist organisations or declared areas.
Senate Hansard ↗ - 11 Mar 2026
Second-reading debate set out the main arguments
Coalition and One Nation senators argued the bill was needed for ministerial accountability and national security, while the Greens argued it was unconstitutional and would target efforts to bring Australian women and children home from Syria.
Senate Hansard ↗ - 01 Apr 2026
Senate defeated the second reading
The Senate negatived the second reading by 34 noes to 26 ayes, leaving the APH bill status as Not Proceeding.
Senate division ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 03 Mar 2026
Senator Jonathon Duniam introduced the private senator's billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it on behalf of the government. APH lists this bill as a private bill sponsored by Senator Jonathon Duniam. in the Senate.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 03 Mar 2026
Duniam moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 11 Mar 2026
The Senate debated the bill, with Coalition and One Nation senators arguing for ministerial control over returns and Greens speakers opposing the bill on legal and humanitarian grounds.
Second reading debate 01 Apr 2026
Debate resumed, including Government opposition to the bill, One Nation support, Greens criticism and Duniam's reply.
Second reading defeatedThe Senate voted against reading the bill a second time. Because second reading is the vote on the bill's principle, this ended the bill's progress. 01 Apr 2026
The Senate voted 34 noes to 26 ayes against the second reading, so the bill did not proceed.
Second reading negativedThe Senate voted against reading the bill a second time. Because second reading is the vote on the bill's principle, this ended the bill's progress.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
Critics argued the bill was not a workable national-security measure. Labor said it was drafted too broadly and could catch commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers, clergy and allies in the region, while the Greens argued it was unconstitutional and would criminalise assistance to Australian women and children in Syrian camps.
This section summarises criticism found in the collected Senate speeches. It does not treat contested claims in the debate as independently established facts.
Wrong target for existing security powers
Watt argued that if people returned to Australia on their own, existing agencies and security powers were the appropriate way to manage community safety rather than a new offence aimed at third-party facilitation.
Humanitarian and constitutional objections
David Shoebridge said the bill was unconstitutional and would make it a crime for Australians or NGOs to help bring Australian children and their mothers out of a conflict-zone camp.
Political use of women and children in Syria
Sarah Hanson-Young said the bill was about politics and criticised both the Coalition and One Nation for the proposal and Labor for not doing more for stranded women and children.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated Senate cleared second reading
Defeated 26 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, One Nation, Nationals, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents.
Defeated
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 22
Liberal Party 18 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
One Nation 4 / 0
Nationals 3 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
UAP 1 / 0
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Jonathon Duniam
Jonathon Duniam introduced the bill for the Opposition, saying it would make the national government responsible for authorising third-party assistance with the return to Australia of people linked to terrorist organisations or declared areas.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
David Shoebridge
David Shoebridge opposed the bill, calling it unconstitutional and arguing it would criminalise efforts by Australians or aid organisations to help women and children leave camps in Syria.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Tyron Whitten
Tyron Whitten said One Nation supported the bill, arguing that people who had travelled to declared areas or assisted Islamic State should not be helped back into Australia by third parties.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
Michaelia Cash
Michaelia Cash supported the bill, arguing that decisions about returns by people linked to terrorism should be made by accountable ministers rather than through informal arrangements involving activists or intermediaries.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Murray Watt Murray Watt said the Government opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted, too broad and likely to create unintended consequences for people such as commercial aviation workers, aid workers, clergy or regional allies.
“The government does not support the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The bill is poorly drafted and ill conceived and will have unintended consequences.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
4 speakers · 6 contributions · 4 support
Coalition
4 speakers · 6 contributions · 4 support
-
Jonathon Duniam ★ 3 contributions Duniam argued that the bill responded to what he called self-managed returns by people associated with Islamic State, and said third parties should not be able to facilitate returns without Commonwealth authorisation.
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Jonathon Duniam on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jonathon Duniam introduced the bill for the Opposition, saying it would make the national government responsible for authorising third-party assistance with the return to Australia of people linked to terrorist organisations or declared areas. He argued the bill was aimed at ministerial accountability and would not remove a citizen's legal capacity to enter Australia.
“This Bill is very specifically focused on one key aim: namely, inserting into Australian law that it will be the national government (and no one else) who decides when and how people associated with terrorist organisations potentially return to Australia.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Duniam argued that the bill responded to what he called self-managed returns by people associated with Islamic State, and said third parties should not be able to facilitate returns without Commonwealth authorisation. He framed the proposed 10-year offence as consistent with other terrorism-related offences.
“This new offence this legislation seeks to create is in relation to aiding one of the people who has committed one of the aforementioned offences to come back to Australia, to provide support to someone who has actively chosen to be a member of a listed terrorist organisation and to travel to and remain in a declared area that is a terror hotspot—for example, parts of Syria as declared under the Criminal Code—or who has committed a terror related offence.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
In reply, Duniam rejected criticism of the bill and argued the Government should either support the proposal or amend it if it genuinely did not want people in the relevant cohort to return without ministerial control. He linked the bill to wider border-security and national-security concerns.
“The government say they want to protect Australia, say they don't want these people back here, say that they made terrible decisions to go, to support their ISIS fighter husbands and put their children in harm's way.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Michaelia Cash ★ Michaelia Cash supported the bill, arguing that decisions about returns by people linked to terrorism should be made by accountable ministers rather than through informal arrangements involving activists or intermediaries.
“Australians deserve answers. When was this self-managed returns policy created?”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Maria Kovacic Maria Kovacic supported the bill's premise while acknowledging concern for children in camps.
“I'm not going to be ashamed of standing here and saying that I want to defend the people that are here in Australia and the people that share those values, because they are really important—as were every one of the 15 people that was killed on 14 December in Bondi.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jane Hume Jane Hume supported the bill, saying national security decisions should not be handled through secrecy or what she described as self-managed returns.
“The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, once told the Australian people, 'My word is my bond,' but, on the matter of national security, we are seeing the exact opposite.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 2 oppose
Greens
2 speakers · 2 oppose
-
David Shoebridge ★ David Shoebridge opposed the bill, calling it unconstitutional and arguing it would criminalise efforts by Australians or aid organisations to help women and children leave camps in Syria.
“Unprincipled, unethical, unconstitutional—that's what this coalition bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, is.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sarah Hanson-Young Sarah Hanson-Young opposed the bill, saying it was driven by politics and would worsen the position of Australian women and children stranded in Syria.
“Well, the cruelty that is on display from the coalition and One Nation in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 and the hypocrisy of the Labor government: the women and children who are left stranded in Syria, many of whom were trafficked and coerced as young women, as children themselves, have been left stranded now because of a total lack of courage and compassion.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
One Nation
2 speakers · 2 support
One Nation
2 speakers · 2 support
-
Tyron Whitten ★ Tyron Whitten said One Nation supported the bill, arguing that people who had travelled to declared areas or assisted Islamic State should not be helped back into Australia by third parties.
“The Labor government instead relied on third parties to do their dirty work. Save the Children Australia, Dr Jamal Rifi, a raft of lawyers—all assisting this Labor government in the deception of the Australian people.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Malcolm Roberts Malcolm Roberts said One Nation would support the bill.
“I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Recorded vote
- Second reading defeated 26-34 -- The Senate negatived the second reading on 1 April 2026.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 03 Mar 2026
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
Senator Jonathon Duniam introduced the private senator's billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it on behalf of the government. APH lists this bill as a private bill sponsored by Senator Jonathon Duniam. in the Senate.
- 03 Mar 2026
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
Duniam moved the second reading and tabled the explanatory memorandum, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 11 Mar 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The Senate debated the bill, with Coalition and One Nation senators arguing for ministerial control over returns and Greens speakers opposing the bill on legal and humanitarian grounds.
- 01 Apr 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
Debate resumed, including Government opposition to the bill, One Nation support, Greens criticism and Duniam's reply.
- 01 Apr 2026
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second reading defeatedThe Senate voted against reading the bill a second time. Because second reading is the vote on the bill's principle, this ended the bill's progress.
The Senate voted 34 noes to 26 ayes against the second reading, so the bill did not proceed.