One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has unveiled a sweeping new proposal aimed at permanently preventing Australian citizens who fought for Islamic State from returning home, arguing that existing laws leave the country exposed to unacceptable national security risks.

The proposed Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, spanning 22 pages, was circulated to crossbench parliamentarians ahead of Parliament’s scheduled return on 11 August. Senator Hanson says the legislation is designed to overcome constitutional problems that have undermined previous attempts by successive governments to strip citizenship from Australians involved with terrorist organisations.

The move follows comments from Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke acknowledging that Australia’s current legal framework does not always allow the government to prevent Australian citizens linked to ISIS from eventually returning if the legal threshold for exclusion orders cannot be met.

Burke has repeatedly said he would use every lawful power available to keep dangerous extremists out of Australia, but has also stressed that existing legislation imposes significant legal limits.

“Anybody at all who decided to get on a plane and be part of ISIS — anything we can do to restrict your return, if I get that legal option, I take it,” Burke said during a national television interview, while acknowledging temporary exclusion orders are subject to strict legal thresholds.

Those remarks became the catalyst for Hanson’s proposal, which she argues would provide courts with stronger authority to keep high-risk foreign terrorist fighters outside Australia without relying on citizenship-stripping provisions that have repeatedly failed constitutional scrutiny.

According to Hanson, both Labor and Coalition governments have spent more than a decade attempting to address the issue but have failed to establish legislation capable of surviving High Court challenges while adequately protecting the Australian community.

Previous citizenship deprivation laws introduced under Coalition governments were later struck down by the High Court, which ruled that permanently removing Australian citizenship as punishment exceeded constitutional limits in many circumstances.

Labor subsequently replaced parts of the framework by transferring certain powers to the courts rather than ministers, but debate has continued over whether those changes adequately address the risk posed by Australians who joined overseas terrorist organisations.

Rather than relying on citizenship cancellation, Hanson’s bill would establish a system of Federal Court-issued exclusion orders.

Under the proposal, the Home Affairs Minister could apply to the Federal Court seeking an order preventing a person from returning to Australia if the court is satisfied that the individual voluntarily served, materially supported or participated in a listed terrorist organisation, poses an unacceptable ongoing risk, and cannot be safely managed through less restrictive measures.

The legislation would also suspend any obligation to issue return permits while the court considers an application, preventing individuals from returning before judicial proceedings have concluded.

Another major component of the proposal concerns terrorism-related bail laws.

Hanson’s legislation would elevate national security and community protection as the paramount considerations in bail decisions involving terrorism offences.

The explanatory material accompanying the bill argues that family circumstances, accommodation arrangements or electronic monitoring should not, by themselves, amount to exceptional circumstances justifying bail for individuals accused of serious terrorism offences.

The bill would also expand ministerial passport powers, allowing authorities to refuse, suspend or cancel passports for individuals subject to exclusion orders or facing terrorism-related charges.

In addition, it would introduce a new criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment for organising or facilitating an unauthorised return to Australia by a person covered by an exclusion order.

Importantly, exclusion orders would not operate indefinitely.

Each order would remain in force for up to two years, with any extension requiring a fresh Federal Court application supported by updated national security assessments and current evidence of ongoing risk.

Hanson argues this structure is specifically designed to comply with constitutional requirements while ensuring judicial oversight remains central to every decision.

The proposal arrives amid renewed attention on several Australians detained overseas for alleged involvement with Islamic State.

Among the most prominent is former Queensland doctor Tareq Kamleh, who appeared in ISIS propaganda videos after travelling to Syria and was long believed to have died before reports indicated he had survived and remained imprisoned in Iraq.

Media reports suggest a number of Australian men detained in Iraqi prisons may eventually become eligible for release as sentences expire, creating uncertainty over whether they could seek to return to Australia.

The issue has also intensified following the return of several Australian women and children from Syria earlier this year.

The Albanese Government has consistently maintained it did not actively assist those individuals to return, while emphasising that Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have spent years preparing to manage any returnees.

Officials have repeatedly stated that anyone suspected of committing terrorism offences will face investigation and prosecution where evidence exists.

Those not charged remain subject to extensive monitoring by Australia’s security agencies.

Burke has rejected suggestions that the government is taking a soft approach to terrorism.

Instead, he argues the principal challenge lies in constitutional and legal limitations governing the treatment of Australian citizens, regardless of the crimes they may have committed overseas.

Under existing law, temporary exclusion orders may only be imposed where strict statutory requirements are satisfied, and even then they cannot permanently prevent an Australian citizen from returning.

The minister has repeatedly insisted the government will not provide assistance to Australians who voluntarily joined ISIS, saying any individual who returns will face the full attention of police, intelligence agencies and prosecutors where appropriate.

The Coalition has welcomed stronger counter-terrorism measures but is developing its own legislative response.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor responded to Hanson’s correspondence by encouraging her to present the proposals for parliamentary consideration, while Coalition figures have indicated they intend to strengthen their own existing counter-terrorism package before Parliament resumes.

The emergence of competing conservative proposals means Parliament could soon consider multiple bills aimed at tightening Australia’s terrorism laws.

Whether either proposal secures Labor’s support remains uncertain.

Constitutional experts note that any legislation seeking to permanently exclude Australian citizens from returning is likely to face careful judicial scrutiny.

The High Court has previously made clear that citizenship carries fundamental constitutional protections, and governments cannot simply remove those protections through executive decision-making alone.

That legal backdrop explains why Hanson’s proposal deliberately shifts decision-making from ministers to the Federal Court, seeking judicial findings before exclusion orders can be made.

Supporters argue the model better aligns with constitutional principles while strengthening Australia’s ability to manage individuals assessed as posing serious ongoing security threats.

Critics, however, are expected to question whether even court-issued exclusion orders can indefinitely prevent Australian citizens from returning without eventually attracting constitutional challenge.

The debate therefore extends well beyond one piece of legislation.

It raises fundamental questions about how Australia balances national security, constitutional protections and the rights of citizenship in an era where terrorism threats increasingly involve Australians radicalised overseas before seeking to return home.

With Parliament due to resume shortly, Hanson’s bill is set to become one of the most closely watched national security proposals of the year, testing whether lawmakers can find a bipartisan approach that strengthens public safety while remaining consistent with Australia’s constitutional framework.