This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
The bill would let the Federal Court stop a person from entering Australia for up to two years.
Pauline Hanson (One Nation), who introduced the bill, said 15 women linked to Islamic State had returned to Australia since the government took office and that two facing terrorism and slavery charges had been released on bail. She also said 13 people linked to Islamic State were reportedly held in Baghdad and might seek to return. Her stated aim was to replace a system that only delays and manages returns with one that could keep the highest-risk people out when the Federal Court finds that no safer, less restrictive option would work.
Australia already had a temporary exclusion-order system for managing the return of citizens linked to overseas terrorist organisations, but Senator Pauline Hanson said that 15 women linked to Islamic State had returned since the government took office, including two facing terrorism and slavery charges who were released on bail, while 13 others were reportedly held in Baghdad. Her private member’s bill sought Federal Court power to exclude the highest-risk people for up to two years and add bail, travel-document and facilitation offences, but the Senate negatived its second reading on 10 September 2026.
David Pocock (Independent) said vague wording about protecting the Australian community and uncertainty about what conduct could trigger a court application were fatal problems. He also raised constitutional concerns and warned that the proposal could undermine the criminal justice system and divide Australians. David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued that the bill was unconstitutional and would be struck down. He said Australia should instead support courts and international tribunals that could try alleged Islamic State fighters and imprison those convicted.
Senator Pauline Hanson introduced this bill. It was supported by Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
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
The bill would let the Federal Court stop a person from entering Australia for up to two years. Before applying, the Home Affairs Minister would need an existing temporary exclusion orderAn existing order that delays and controls a person's return to Australia. or foreign terrorist fighter exclusion orderA proposed Federal Court order temporarily preventing a person from entering Australia. covering the person, but the person would not need to have applied for a return permitA document allowing a controlled return to Australia, potentially with conditions.. The court would need to find that the person voluntarily served, participated in or materially supported a listed terrorist organisationAn organisation formally listed as terrorist under Commonwealth law. overseas, would pose an unacceptable safety risk, and could not be managed by a less restrictive option such as a return permitA document allowing a controlled return to Australia, potentially with conditions. with conditions. Coercion, duress and trafficking would not count as voluntary conduct.
Community protection would be the court's most important consideration. For someone under 18, their best interests would also be a primary consideration. The minister would have to prove the case, while the court would assess the evidence and consider any material before it from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and other federal security or law-enforcement agencies.
While a ministerial decision to prepare a court application was in force, the usual duties to consider or issue a return permitA document allowing a controlled return to Australia, potentially with conditions. would be paused. The minister could still choose to issue a permit, including when someone was being deported or extradited to Australia. Without a court application, the pause could last no more than 90 days and could not be restarted using substantially the same conduct unless new information justified it.
A temporary exclusion orderAn existing order that delays and controls a person's return to Australia. would continue beyond its normal end date only if court proceedings were still unresolved when it would otherwise expire. It would be suspended while a new court order was operating and could revive if that order ended early or was overturned. It would not revive if the person was returning under a permit for deportation, extradition or transfer to Australia as a prisoner.
Entering Australia while covered by one of the new court orders would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The person or the minister could ask the court to change or revoke the order at any time, but changing it could not extend its length. A further exclusion would require a fresh court application.
For people charged with or convicted of specified terrorism offences, community protection and national security would become the most important considerations in bail decisions. Bail would not be automatically refused: each case would still be assessed, but bail could be granted only if release would not create an unacceptable risk of terrorism offending. Family or caring duties, accommodation, electronic monitoring and ordinary court delays would not, by themselves, establish the unusual circumstances required for bail.
The Home Affairs Minister could personally refuse, cancel or suspend a person's Australian travel documents on four exhaustive grounds: a temporary exclusion orderAn existing order that delays and controls a person's return to Australia., a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion orderA proposed Federal Court order temporarily preventing a person from entering Australia., an active decision to seek such a court order, or a terrorism charge or conviction. The minister could act without a request from a police or security authority. A suspension would end at the specified time or when revoked, and the minister would have to revoke it once none of the four grounds remained. The law would still allow, but not guarantee, documents for a permitted return, deportation, extradition or prisoner transfer. Refusal and cancellation could be reconsidered on their merits; suspension could be reviewed by a court but not reconsidered on its merits.
Someone who organised or helped another person enter Australia could face up to 10 years in prison if that other person had committed a terrorism or declared-area offence, was known to intend such an offence before entering, or was or had been a member of a terrorist organisation. The offence would not cover Commonwealth authorities, people acting for them, or conduct approved in writing beforehand by both the Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs ministers.
The bill would extend the laws covering entry into declared overseas areas associated with terrorism for three years, moving their end date from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030.
22E Making a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order (1) On an application under section 22D, the Federal Court may make an order (a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order) in relation to a person if the Court is satisfied: (a) on the balance of probabilities, that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily engaged in conduct that constituted serving with, participating in the activities of, or materially supporting a listed terrorist organisation; and (b) that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Australian community if the person were permitted to entProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
(2) In determining whether to make the order, the Court must treat the protection of the Australian community as the paramount consideration. (3) If the person is under 18 years of age, the Court must, in determining whether to make the order, also have regard to the best interests of the person as a primary consideration. Note: The protection of the Australian community remains the paramount consideration: see subsection (2). (4) In determining whether it is satisfied of the matters in subsection (1), the Court must have regard to the following: (a) any assessment of the Australian SecuriProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
22C Suspension of return permit obligations (1) This section applies in relation to a person while a determination under subsection 22B(1) is in force in relation to the person. (2) Despite section 15: (a) the Minister is not required to issue a return permit to the person; and (b) the Minister is not required to consider, or to make a decision on, an application for a return permit made by, or on behalf of, the person; and (c) a period applicable under subsection 15(3) in relation to the person does not run. Note: The effect of subsection 22B(6) is that the suspension effected by this sProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
(3) If a temporary exclusion order is in force in relation to a person immediately before a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order comes into force in relation to the person: (a) the temporary exclusion order is suspended while the foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order is in force; and (b) while suspended, the temporary exclusion order is taken not to be in force; and (c) if the foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order ceases to be in force, or is set aside on appeal, before the end of the period specified for the purposes of paragraph 10(6)(d) in the temporary exclusion order—the tProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
(1) A person commits an offence if: (a) a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order is in force in relation to the person; and (b) the person enters Australia. Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years. (2) Section 9 applies in relation to a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order in the same way as it applies in relation to a temporary exclusion order. (3) If a temporary exclusion order is in force in relation to a person immediately before a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order comes into force in relation to the person: (a) the temporary exclusion order is suspended while the foreignProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
(3AB) Without limiting subsection (3AA), in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting bail to a person covered by subsection (2) or (2A), the bail authority: (a) must treat the following as the paramount considerations: (i) the protection of the community; (ii) national security; and (b) must not be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist unless the bail authority is also satisfied that granting bail would not pose an unacceptable risk of the person engaging in conduct constituting a terrorism offence. Note: For persons under 18 years of age, the bestProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
22B Refusal, cancellation and suspension on terrorism grounds (1) The Minister may do any of the following in relation to a person if the Minister is satisfied that one or more of the grounds in subsection (2) applies in relation to the person: (a) refuse to issue an Australian travel document to the person; (b) cancel an Australian travel document that has been issued to the person; (c) suspend all Australian travel documents that have been issued to the person. (2) The grounds are the following: (a) a temporary exclusion order under the Counter‑Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) AcProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
119.3A Prohibition on organising or facilitating entry into Australia of certain persons (1) 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; and (b) at any time while the first person does so: (i) the other person has engaged in conduct constituting a terrorism offence or an offence against subsection 119.2(1); or (ii) the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting a terrorism offence or an offence against subsectionProtecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
2 Subsection 119.2(6) of the Criminal Code Omit “7 September 2027”, substitute “7 September 2030”. 3 Subsection 119.3(9) of the Criminal Code Omit “7 September 2027”, substitute “7 September 2030”.Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters introduced text
Context
Australia already had a temporary exclusion-order system for managing the return of citizens linked to overseas terrorist organisations, but Senator Pauline Hanson said that 15 women linked to Islamic State had returned since the government took office, including two facing terrorism and slavery charges who were released on bail, while 13 others were reportedly held in Baghdad. Her private member’s bill sought Federal Court power to exclude the highest-risk people for up to two years and add bail, travel-document and facilitation offences, but the Senate negatived its second reading on 10 September 2026.
Pauline Hanson unveils a plan to block foreign terrorist fighters
Senator Pauline Hanson announced the private member’s bill as One Nation’s proposal to prevent Australians with terrorism links from returning under the existing system.
Sydney Morning Herald ↗Calls emerge to change temporary exclusion-order laws
ABC News reported that former intelligence chief Mike Pezzullo supported compromises to laws governing temporarily excluded citizens who sought to return to Australia.
ABC News ↗Senator Pauline Hanson introduces the bill
In her second reading speech, Hanson pointed to 15 women linked to Islamic State who had returned since the government took office, including two facing terrorism and slavery charges who had been released on bail.
Hansard ↗Senate rejects the bill at second reading
The Senate negatived the second reading, ending the bill’s parliamentary progress without creating the proposed Federal Court exclusion orders or related offences.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (13/08/2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (07/09/2026)
Report tabled 07 Sep 2026
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
David Pocock (Independent) said vague wording about protecting the Australian community and uncertainty about what conduct could trigger a court application were fatal problems. He also raised constitutional concerns and warned that the proposal could undermine the criminal justice system and divide Australians. David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued that the bill was unconstitutional and would be struck down. He said Australia should instead support courts and international tribunals that could try alleged Islamic State fighters and imprison those convicted.
Supporters said the new orders would be made by the Federal Court, not the minister, and would last no more than two years, with a fresh court case needed for another order. Jonathon Duniam (Liberal) supported strengthening the system but acknowledged concerns that the bill did not clearly define community protection or explain what risks were not already covered by temporary exclusion orders.
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 20 to 32. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Shoebridge opposes the bill, arguing that it is unconstitutional, will not protect Australians and distracts from prosecuting ISIS fighters through properly funded international courts and tribunals.
Read in Hansard ↗Whitten urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that its court-based exclusion orders and related measures are needed to prevent Australians who supported terrorist organisations overseas from returning and endangering the community.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock opposes the bill because its vague language, constitutional risks and potential to undermine the criminal justice system and divide the community are fatal flaws, while criticising the rushed scrutiny process.
Read in Hansard ↗Hanson urges the Senate to pass her bill, arguing it would protect Australians by allowing courts to exclude the most dangerous foreign terrorist fighters, strengthening terrorism-related bail rules and penalising assistance with their return.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“With that, of course we will support the vote on this legislation. It does something; this government does nothing. We remain in harm's way. I look forward to further consideration of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“And this lot—One Nation—are bringing in a piece of legislation that they know is unconstitutional, that they know is going to get struck down by the courts. If it ever does pass—and I hope it won't—it'll have the shelf life of a prawn sandwich in a Canberra summer. They know that. It's got about 15 minutes on it before it turns off and makes you sick. That's what they're bringing in here. But they don't care, because it's actually not about policy for them. It's not about whatever they say about protecting Australians. That's not their agenda; they know it won't work. All this is about is clickbait, and it's about driving down their little toxic algorithms, because they think the Elon Musk acceleration plan will get their unconstitutional guff and their outrage politics—their little algorithm—going, and maybe they'll season it with their other disgraceful attacks on people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
“One Nation is here to be the bulwark for Australia's needs. Pass the bill, put the question to a court, put community safety first, and stop telling Australians to watch people who chose Islamic State walk back through the arrival gates because nobody in this building would change the laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Pauline Hanson on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Hanson urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that court-issued exclusion orders, stricter terrorism-related bail rules and passport controls would protect Australians from people who voluntarily supported terrorist organisations abroad while retaining judicial safeguards.
“I commend the Bill to the Senate.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Hanson urges the Senate to pass her bill, arguing it would protect Australians by allowing courts to exclude the most dangerous foreign terrorist fighters, strengthening terrorism-related bail rules and penalising assistance with their return.
“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?”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This is quite aside from some of the issues around subverting our own criminal justice system and potentially dividing our community, pitting Australians against each other, and I want to be clear that I call those out. I do not support this bill—I will vote against it—but I certainly support the Senate in ensuring that all parties and independent senators have an opportunity for their policy ideas to be properly scrutinised.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 07 Sep 2026
Referred to Committee (13 Aug 2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (7 Sept 2026)
APH bill page notes
