Bill Debate · Second Reading

Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 10 September 2026

Continued from Wednesday 12 August 2026.

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

At a glance

The debate centred on whether the bill provided necessary legal tools to prevent the return of individuals linked to Islamic State, or whether it was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. One Nation and the Liberal Party supported the legislation, arguing that the government had failed to protect national security by allowing returns despite claiming no assistance was provided. The Australian Greens and an independent senator opposed the bill, citing constitutional risks, vague definitions, and a lack of proper scrutiny. The bill was ultimately defeated in the Senate.

Outcome

The bill was not passed, with 21 senators voting against it and 32 voting in favour.

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

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

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

Hanson argued that the government had failed its primary duty to keep Australians safe by allowing women linked to Islamic State to return, despite public claims of providing no assistance. Hanson contended that the bill closed a legislative gap by enabling the Federal Court to issue exclusion orders for individuals posing an unacceptable risk, rather than relying on temporary measures that merely delayed return. Hanson emphasised that the minister could not make orders unilaterally, as judicial oversight was required, and that the scheme included safeguards for minors and those coerced. Hanson rejected government claims of unconstitutionality, noting that legal experts had not definitively ruled the bill invalid and that the High Court was the sole arbiter of such matters.

Opposition response

Jonathon Duniam (TAS) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Duniam supported the bill, stating that the government had neglected national security by facilitating the return of individuals who had supported terrorist organisations. Duniam acknowledged concerns raised by experts regarding the definition of protecting the community and the overlap with existing temporary exclusion orders, but argued that improving the regime was preferable to inaction. Duniam criticised the government for opposing previous attempts to strengthen these laws and urged collaboration to address any legislative concerns. Duniam concluded that the bill represented a necessary step to protect Australians from harm.

David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Shoebridge opposed the bill, characterising it as unconstitutional and a distraction from genuine efforts to hold terrorist fighters accountable through international tribunals. Shoebridge argued that the legislation lacked policy substance and was designed for political gain rather than national security. Shoebridge highlighted evidence from officials in Syria who defeated Islamic State, stating that they required support for judicial processes rather than exclusion orders that might not withstand legal scrutiny.
Tyron Whitten (WA) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation support

Whitten argued that the government had failed to stop the return of individuals linked to Islamic State, despite claiming to provide no assistance. Whitten detailed how the bill would allow the Federal Court to issue exclusion orders based on present risk, with strict safeguards and time limits. Whitten rejected claims of unconstitutionality, noting that the legal question of a citizen's right to enter Australia had not been definitively settled by the High Court. Whitten asserted that the existing temporary exclusion orders were insufficient and that the bill was necessary to protect the community.
David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind oppose

Pocock opposed the bill, citing concerns about the brevity of the inquiry period and the lack of public hearings. Pocock referenced expert testimony highlighting vague language regarding the protection of the community and potential constitutional issues. Pocock argued that these flaws were fatal to the legislation and that it risked subverting the criminal justice system. Pocock emphasised the need for proper scrutiny of policy ideas before voting.
Sean Bell (NSW) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation support

Bell moved that the question be put, effectively ending the debate and proceeding to the vote.

Votes during this debate

Division 1: Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026; Second Reading Not passed 21–32

First speaker today

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

One Nation

Bill

Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026

Speeches

6 speeches, 4 other contributors

Topics

No tags

Debate Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026; First Reading Bill Debate, 12 Aug 2026 · Same bill
Debate Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 12 Aug 2026 · Same bill

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.