Albanese government votes down One Nation bill to stop terrorist fighters from returning to Australia – as Pauline Hanson hits back
The Albanese government, backed by the Greens and key crossbench senators, voted down a One Nation bill on Thursday that sought to stop Australians who fought for or supported terrorist organisations abroad from returning home. The bill's defeat prompted a sharp response from One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who accused Labor of failing its "first responsibility" to keep Australians safe, while critics argued the legislation was legally flawed and unlikely to survive court challenges.
The Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill would have let the Home Affairs Minister seek Federal Court orders barring the return of Australians who had served, participated in or materially supported listed terrorist groups overseas, alongside tougher bail rules and expanded passport cancellation powers. It was driven largely by One Nation's opposition to the May repatriation of 19 Australian women and children, dubbed "ISIS brides", from Syrian detention camps. Greens senator David Shoebridge called the bill unconstitutional "clickbait" politics, while independent David Pocock said the underlying issue was nuanced but sided against the bill following evidence from a Senate inquiry, which had flagged vague drafting and overlap with existing exclusion order powers.
In short
- Senate rejects One Nation's foreign terrorist fighter exclusion bill
- Bill targeted return of repatriated "ISIS brides" and families
- Critics called it unconstitutional; Hanson accuses Labor of neglecting safety
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that people who fought for or materially supported terrorist groups may pose a serious security risk, and that preventing their return gives authorities time to assess and manage that risk. They may see stronger powers as a way to protect the public and ensure the state can act before a threat materialises.
The case against
Opponents could argue that barring Australian citizens from returning through a broadly worded law risks limiting basic rights and may not withstand court scrutiny. They may also contend that existing powers already address the threat, and that vague or overlapping measures could be ineffective while distracting from careful, case-by-case security decisions.
Explained simply
Australia already has laws that can restrict citizens’ travel and return when they are suspected of links to terrorist groups. The Home Affairs Minister can seek orders that temporarily prevent some people from coming back, while police and courts can investigate or prosecute offences committed overseas.
One Nation, led by Pauline Hanson, proposed giving the minister broader powers over Australians who fought for or supported listed terrorist groups abroad. The proposal followed the return of 19 Australian women and children from camps in Syria linked to Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS.
The debate involves how to protect public safety while respecting citizens’ legal rights and the courts’ role. A Senate inquiry raised concerns about the bill’s wording and how it would fit with existing powers.
Business Elections Government Markets Politics World