Matter of Public Importance

National Security

Senate · Tuesday 11 August 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a matter of public importance regarding the safety of Australians versus the rights of citizens who joined terrorist organisations. One Nation members argued the government facilitated the return of ISIS-linked individuals and proposed new exclusion legislation. Labor senators defended the government's stance that it provided no assistance for repatriation, emphasising youth radicalisation and constitutional limits on exclusion orders. The debate concluded with the motion being agreed to by the Senate.

Outcome

The motion was agreed to by the Senate.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Malcolm Roberts (QLD) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation

Roberts argued that the government actively assisted in the return of women who had joined ISIS, citing evidence of coordinated efforts with advocacy groups and community leaders. Roberts contended that these individuals committed serious criminal offences, including joining terrorist organisations and enslavement, yet faced limited consequences. Roberts announced that One Nation would introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026 to strengthen border controls and prevent the return of foreign terrorist fighters. Roberts asserted that the bill was constitutionally sound and necessary to prioritise national security over the rights of those who supported terrorism.

Opposition response

Jonathon Duniam (TAS) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Duniam supported the urgency motion, arguing that the government failed to keep Australians safe by facilitating the return of ISIS supporters. Duniam claimed the government provided passports, transport, and accommodation, effectively running a concierge service for individuals who rejected Australian values. Duniam highlighted the distress caused to the Yazidi community, who suffered persecution by ISIS, and argued that returning these individuals posed a significant security risk. Duniam criticised the government for not preventing the entry of people who supported extremist ideologies.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Ananda-Rajah argued that opposition parties were misleading the public by claiming the government assisted in repatriation, stating the Prime Minister had consistently refused to help. Ananda-Rajah shifted focus to youth radicalisation, citing ASIO data showing a rise in young people being radicalised online. Ananda-Rajah highlighted government investments in a new counterterrorism centre and social media bans to address the root causes of extremism among minors.
Sean Bell (NSW) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation oppose

Bell asserted that the government failed in its primary duty to keep Australians safe by allowing ISIS-linked individuals to return. Bell argued that citizenship involves mutual obligations and that those who pledged allegiance to terrorist groups betrayed the country. Bell outlined One Nation's proposed legislation, which would create exclusion orders, strengthen passport powers, and impose penalties for facilitating the return of terrorists.
Charlotte Walker (SA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Walker stated that while supporting terrorism is unacceptable, Australia must take responsibility for its citizens under the rule of law. Walker argued that the current temporary exclusion order system was already at the constitutional limit and that court involvement would add unnecessary hurdles. Walker criticised One Nation for inconsistent stances on safety, contrasting their focus on terrorism with their dismissal of domestic violence as a serious threat.
Ellie Whiteaker (WA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Whiteaker emphasised the government's record funding for defence and national security, including AUKUS submarine acquisitions. Whiteaker argued that One Nation's proposed legislation was likely unconstitutional and would create additional barriers to issuing exclusion orders. Whiteaker maintained that the government would not assist in the return of ISIS supporters and that stoking fear undermined social cohesion and safety.