Australia’s counter-terrorism framework has come under renewed scrutiny after former Australian Federal Police detective superintendent David Craig warned that existing laws are no longer sufficient to deal with the evolving threat posed by Australians linked to the Islamic State group.

Craig, who spent decades investigating terrorism and national security matters during his policing career, believes recent developments involving Australians detained in Iraq should prompt a significant review of the nation’s counter-terrorism legislation before more suspected extremists attempt to return home.

His comments come as the Albanese Government faces increasing political pressure over reports that up to 13 Australian men suspected of fighting for Islamic State could eventually be released from Iraqi prisons, potentially triggering legal questions about whether Australia would be required to allow their return.

According to Craig, Australia’s legal framework has not kept pace with the changing nature of international terrorism or the challenges presented by foreign terrorist fighters returning from conflict zones.

“Australia’s counter-terrorism laws are failing to keep pace with the threat posed by returning Islamic State associates,” Craig said while discussing the issue.

He argued that governments must fundamentally reconsider how Australia manages individuals who travelled overseas to support or fight alongside extremist organisations before seeking to return.

“If Bondi wasn’t a wake-up call for Australia to fundamentally change the way our courts, our laws, and our politicians approach counter-terrorism matters, particularly radical Islam, then we are in for a lot more hurt,” Craig told News24.

Growing concern over Australians detained in Iraq

The latest debate centres on a group of Australian citizens currently detained in Iraq after allegedly fighting for or supporting Islamic State during conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

Although many remain imprisoned, legal and diplomatic experts have warned that changing circumstances within Iraq could eventually result in some detainees being released.

Should that occur, Australia may face complex legal questions surrounding citizenship, constitutional rights and the ability of governments to prevent citizens from returning home.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has previously indicated that the government will not actively assist the return of the men, but acknowledged that Australian law may ultimately limit the government’s ability to permanently prevent Australian citizens from re-entering the country if they are released.

That possibility has become one of the most contentious national security issues currently confronting Canberra.

Craig argues current laws are no longer enough

Craig believes existing legislation provides important powers but says those powers should be strengthened considerably.

He argues Australia’s legal framework was designed for an earlier generation of terrorism threats and now requires updating to reflect the realities of modern extremist networks, foreign conflict zones and online radicalisation.

Among the areas he believes deserve closer examination are post-release supervision, stricter monitoring arrangements, stronger bail provisions for terrorism offences and expanded powers allowing authorities to manage individuals assessed as presenting an ongoing national security risk.

Craig has also previously argued that Australian authorities should make greater use of international cooperation to gather evidence capable of supporting criminal prosecutions against returning Islamic State members wherever possible.

The legacy of Australia’s ISIS recruitment

Australia experienced one of its highest terrorism threat periods during the rise of Islamic State between 2014 and 2017.

Government estimates at the time suggested around 150 Australians had travelled to Iraq or Syria to join extremist organisations, while dozens more attempted to leave Australia before being stopped by authorities.

Some Australians died while fighting overseas, others were prosecuted upon their return, and intelligence agencies have continued monitoring individuals assessed as posing an ongoing security risk.

Successive governments responded by introducing some of Australia’s toughest counter-terrorism legislation, including temporary exclusion orders, expanded control orders, passport cancellation powers and offences criminalising travel to declared conflict areas.

Those measures were widely regarded as among the strongest counter-terrorism laws in Australia’s history.

Craig argues they nevertheless require further strengthening to meet today’s security challenges.

Bondi attack renews national debate

Craig specifically referenced the Bondi terrorist attack as evidence that Australia cannot become complacent regarding extremist violence.

The attack shocked the nation and reignited discussion surrounding domestic radicalisation, intelligence gathering and the ability of security agencies to identify individuals who may present future threats.

Although every terrorism incident has unique circumstances, Craig believes the broader lesson remains that governments should continually review counter-terrorism laws rather than waiting until after major attacks occur.

His comments reflect growing calls from some national security experts for regular legislative reviews as terrorist methodologies evolve.

Balancing security and civil liberties

The debate over returning Islamic State associates also highlights one of the most difficult legal questions facing democratic governments.

Australian citizens generally possess a legal right to enter Australia, even when they have committed offences overseas.

Where sufficient admissible evidence exists, authorities can prosecute returning individuals under Australian criminal law for terrorism offences, war crimes or providing support to terrorist organisations.

However, obtaining evidence from active conflict zones remains one of the greatest practical challenges confronting investigators.

Witnesses may be unavailable, crime scenes destroyed and foreign intelligence difficult to use directly in Australian courts.

Legal experts therefore note that balancing constitutional rights with community protection often requires complex judicial assessment rather than purely political decision-making.

Political pressure intensifies

The issue has rapidly become a significant political debate ahead of Parliament’s return.

Opposition parties and crossbench senators have argued that Australia’s legal framework should be strengthened before any suspected Islamic State fighters have the opportunity to return.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has already unveiled proposed legislation that would create stronger exclusion powers, make bail for terrorism offences more difficult to obtain and introduce additional criminal offences relating to the unauthorised facilitation of foreign terrorist fighters returning to Australia.

The Coalition has also indicated it is examining additional counter-terrorism measures, increasing the prospect that Parliament could soon debate competing legislative proposals designed to tighten Australia’s national security framework.

The Albanese Government maintains that Australia already possesses robust counter-terrorism laws while continuing to monitor developments involving Australians detained overseas.

Monitoring after return

Craig has also emphasised that where suspected extremists cannot legally be prevented from returning, authorities should possess extensive powers to supervise them.

He has previously argued that individuals returning from conflict zones should be subject to rigorous monitoring of communications, associations and movements wherever lawful and appropriate.

Australia already has a range of post-sentence supervision mechanisms available through control orders and continuing detention orders in certain circumstances, although their application depends upon legislative criteria and judicial approval.

Whether those existing powers are sufficient remains one of the central questions now confronting policymakers.

A debate likely to continue

National security experts broadly agree that the threat posed by Islamic State has evolved rather than disappeared.

Although the group’s territorial “caliphate” was dismantled years ago, intelligence agencies around the world continue monitoring affiliates, online recruitment networks and individuals inspired by extremist ideology.

Australian governments of both political persuasions have repeatedly stated that counter-terrorism remains among the country’s highest national security priorities.

Craig’s intervention adds further momentum to calls for another comprehensive review of Australia’s legal framework as Parliament prepares to consider future national security legislation.

Whether lawmakers ultimately conclude that existing powers remain adequate or that further reforms are necessary, the prospect of Australians linked to Islamic State eventually seeking to return home ensures the issue will remain a major focus of political and public debate in the months ahead. With community safety, constitutional rights and international legal obligations all intersecting, the discussion is likely to become one of the most significant national security conversations facing Australia in 2026.