I am pleased to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. The first responsibility of any government is to keep Australians safe. Australians rightfully expect this government to put their safety and our national security above all else. The Albanese Labor government has failed to meet this expectation. Since this government took office, 15 women linked to the listed terrorist organisation Islamic State, or ISIS, have returned to Australia. Two face terrorism and slavery charges and have been released into the community on bail.

This government says it offered no assistance to bring these people home, but we know the government met with lobbyists campaigning for their return. Records and handwritten notes of that meeting indicate the minister discussed how a return could be achieved without a formal government undertaking. They indicated he thanked those lobbyists for keeping the matter out of the media. They indicated a departmental official was asked to leave the room so there could be a frank discussion. We do not know what was said after that official walked out. We do not know what was promised. We do not know whether a pathway was agreed for the return of others. What we do know is this: the minister blocked the last of these women on national security grounds. A short time later, he issued her a permit to return. His explanation was that the law gave him no choice.

That's not good enough. Australians know that isn't good enough. If the minister genuinely believes the law stops him from keeping Australians safe, his job is not to shrug and accept it. His job and the parliament's job is to come into this place and change it. Labor has not acted to keep Australians safe, so it has fallen on One Nation to change the law. This bill does exactly that. One Nation is acting where Labor has failed to act.

Let's not lose sight of what we are dealing with here. Islamic State horrified the world. It enslaved thousands of people. It burned captives alive and filmed it. Individuals who left Australia to join this organisation celebrated these acts and actively took part in them. Thirteen of them are reported to have been held in prison in Baghdad. They include Tareq Kamleh, otherwise known as Dr Jihad, who appeared in ISIS propaganda videos urging others to travel to ISIS-held territory or to wage jihad elsewhere. It is reported that Dr Jihad and others who served ISIS may soon be released from custody and may seek to return to Australia. This bill gives Australia stronger, lawful tools to protect the community.

Schedule 1 creates a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. The Minister for Home Affairs may apply to the Federal Court for one. The court may make the order only if it is satisfied of three things: that the person while outside Australia voluntarily served with, participated in the activities of, or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of the Australian community if allowed to enter; and that no less restrictive measure would be effective to protect the community from that risk. The protection of the Australian community is a paramount consideration. Entering Australia in breach of one of these orders carries 10 years imprisonment. While that case is being prepared and run, the minister's obligation to issue a return permit is suspended. That suspension is kept at 90 days unless the application is actually filed with the court, and it cannot be recycled on the same matter.

Schedule 2 deals with the bail. Where a person is charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence, the protection of the community and national security become the paramount considerations. A bail authority cannot find exceptional circumstances unless it is also satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of the person committing a terrorism offence. Child care, family circumstances, the offer of somewhere to live or an ankle bracelet will not on their own get an alleged terrorist out on bail.

Schedule 3 deals with passports. The minister will be able to refuse, cancel or suspend an Australian travel document where an exclusion order is in force, where a determination to apply for one is in force or where the person has been charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. Those four grounds are written into the act. They cannot be added to by regulation.

Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate bringing a foreign terrorist fighter into Australia without the prior written permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs. The penalty is 10 years. Schedule 4 also extends the declared areas offence, which is due to sunset in September next year through to 2030.

Let me deal directly with the objection I expect to hear, which is that this hands too much power to a minister. It does not. The minister cannot make one of these orders; only the Federal Court can. The minister must prove their case on evidence before a judge, and the court decides. An order runs for a maximum of two years. There is no administrative renewal. If the minister wants it longer, the minister goes back to the court and proves every element again on current evidence. The person can apply to the court at any time to have the order varied or revoked. If the court finds that a controlled return under strict permit conditions would protect the community, that is the path that must be taken. Where a person is being deported, extradited or transferred home as a prisoner, the order gives way.

The order only reaches people who act voluntarily. Someone who was coerced, held under duress or trafficked is not caught by it. Where the person is under 18, the court must treat their best interests as a primary consideration. Decisions are made on current advice from our national security agencies. Sensitive material is handled under the established national security information framework, and the minister must report the operation of the scheme to this parliament every year. This is a protective scheme. It is directed at the risk a person presents today, not at what they deserve. These are measures the minister could have legislated himself while he was secretly meeting with lobbyists who wanted these terrorists back on Australian soil. So I say this to the government: if the law truly tied your hands, here is the bill that unties them.

The minister has said this bill is unconstitutional. This is just another excuse. The minister had not seen the bill when he made those comments. The minister has refused to release his supposed legal advice. Commentary from prominent legal experts and others, including the former secretary of the department, indicates this bill addresses prior constitutional concerns. At the end of the day, only the High Court, not the minister or this Labor government, can determine if laws are unconstitutional.

Australians are sick of the excuses of this government. They are sick of this government passing the buck on protecting the community from terrorism. I say this to every senator in this chamber: when a person leaves this country to serve an organisation that enslaved thousands and burned prisoners alive and then decides they would like to come home, someone has to be put first. Either it is them or it is the Australians who never left. One Nation puts Australians first.

There was a Senate inquiry response to this. The committee wants the Senate to reject my Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I say the committee has got it wrong. The committee says existing temporary exclusion orders are enough. Those orders only delay and manage a terrorist fighter's return. My bill allows the Federal Court to keep the most dangerous foreign fighters out. This is not a minister making a decision behind closed doors. The minister must go to the Federal Court and prove that the person voluntarily served, joined or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; that they pose an unacceptable risk to Australians; and that no lesser measure will keep the public safe. The court makes the decision. The court assesses the risk. Orders are time limited and can be reviewed, changed or revoked. There are extra protections for minors. These are strong safeguards.

The committee talks about constitutional concerns as though the High Court has already struck this bill down. Not one submitter gave a definitive opinion that the bill would be invalid. Constitutional questions deserve proper scrutiny, but a possible argument is not a finding of invalidity.

If the government says a provision is defective, it should identify it, explain why it is and propose an amendment. It did none of those things. The government refused to make a submission to the inquiry. Then, when the Senate ordered it to produce the advice behind its claim that stronger exclusion laws would be knocked over by the High Court, the government handed over—guess what—a media article. This was to the committee. They handed over, as their evidence, a media article.

There is another problem the committee avoids. The government has pursued the return of ISIS linked women while resisting strong laws to keep dangerous foreign fighters out. The Minister for Home Affairs held a private meeting with advocates, asked an official to leave and continued a frank discussion without an official record. Australians are entitled to ask whose interests this government is protecting.

My bill closes a real gap. Temporary exclusion orders manage a person's return. My bill deals with the worst cases of people the Federal Court finds are too dangerous to return because no lesser measure can protect Australians. The committee assumes every risk can be managed with monitoring and conditions after arrival. That is reckless—absolutely reckless. Parliament should not wait for a preventable attack before acting.

This bill also sends a clear warning: if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation, you may not be allowed back. Didn't we hear those words from our former prime ministers—'If you leave this country to go and fight over there, you will not be allowed back in'? Well, how true were they? Not at all—because that's what's happened; they've come back. So you can't trust the words of these so-called governments. I don't care if it's the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the Nationals; you can't trust what they tell you. That's why we need a bill to protect Australians.

This bill also sends a clear warning that if you leave Australia to join or support a terrorist organisation you may not be allowed back. This is a consequence people should understand before they make that choice. The committee also gives too little weight to the Yazidi organisations and survivor committees who gave evidence. They know what Islamic State did. Their concerns are based on the murder, slavery and terror inflicted by that organisation.

The bill also strengthens bail laws for terrorism offences and targets people who knowingly organise or assist the return of terrorist linked persons. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. One bad bail decision can cost innocent lives. The committee has not proved that this bill is unconstitutional. It has not proved that the existing laws can deal with the highest-risk foreign fighters. It has not offered a better plan. It has simply told the Senate to do nothing. That is not good enough.

Australians expect us to stop dangerous terrorists before they reach our shores, not manage the consequences after they arrive. The Senate should reject the committee's recommendation and pass this bill. I warn you, if any of you choose not to support this bill, every Australian has the right to condemn you as an accessory to murder if any one of these ISIS fighters commits an act of terrorism that inevitably takes innocent lives. Who are you protecting? Where is your true allegiance?

I rise to make a contribution to the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. I've often said in this place that it is the No. 1 job of any government to protect the Australian people. I've long been on record suggesting that this government is not doing that. In fact, there are so many points of evidence, data points, that any Australian can look at and see that this government has dropped the ball in the worst of ways. Senator Hanson, the proponent of this bill, has highlighted a number of those.

Recent history dictates that this government, far from doing the No. 1 job to keep Australians safe, has rolled out the welcome mat—the red carpet, the express lane—into Australia for people who turned their back on this country. These are people who made an active choice to go and do something that is not in our country's interests and is in fact something that only an enemy of our country would do. These are people who chose to join Islamic State and support Islamic State and their aims and imperatives. This is an organisation that hates the Australian way of life, the rule of law and our democratic systems. We know all too well that Islamic State, ISIS, and all its functionaries and supporters want to see the unpicking of the way we live in this country and of the things that make Australia a great country.

So how on earth did this government actively lean in to assist individuals who made that choice to turn their back on this country, fly over to wherever in the world they ended up—in this case Syria, a declared terrorist hotspot, where under law it was a criminal act to fly there and remain—and, what's more, support the efforts of a listed terrorist organisation and of individuals perpetrating these harms against people right across the globe? Now they want to come back, as Senator Hanson pointed out. They've made this choice. They've gone and perpetrated harms. They've supported others doing so, like this Dr Jihad who claimed he wasn't a combatant so he's not a threat. He was 'healing the wounds of people' who made the choice to do these things, who killed people, beheaded people and did terrible acts. Now we're saying we should welcome them back.

The government have been active in these conversations with third parties who want to bring them back, offering not just one bit of support. They provided them passports. They allowed them to have their ID checked. Once they got to Australia, they were ferried from the planes to hotels organised by government officials, who bought them pizza on their first night here. And of course we don't know where they are in the community. We don't know where they are in Australia. Australians don't know whether they're living next door to these people. They don't know whether they're in their street or whether their kids are going to somehow cross paths with these individuals. This is the situation that we have under this government, and it is not okay to say: 'Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. Australians are safe.' That is what the current situation is.

I should also reflect, though, that the current temporary exclusion order regime is something that the last coalition government brought in in response to a situation that we faced as a country once Islamic State, the caliphate, had collapsed and we had these people seeking to return to Australia, as they could under Australian law, with no capacity to be stopped by government. There was no temporary exclusion order regime, and there was no control order regime. So, in order to do what we could under the limits of the constitution, the last coalition government introduced both of those regimes to protect Australians—to, as best we could under the constitution, prevent these enemies of our country from coming back—and to, if they did come back, put control orders on them so that we could monitor, manage them and at least have knowledge of where they were and, most importantly, protect Australians from the harm these people would bring back in.

We will welcome any measure that protects Australian people and any measure that seeks to improve the current situation. We had our own private senators' bill to improve the regime around dealing with anyone who would seek to repatriate these people who made these choices against Australia and who sought to cause harm to our country. Of course, the government opposed it. We did have the support of One Nation and a couple of others on the crossbench. Sadly, it was not to pass.

We'll welcome any measure that does go some way to strengthening the regime that is in place today, because the world has changed since the temporary exclusion order regime was put in place, and we need to be dynamic in how we respond. Doing something is better than doing nothing. That is what this government is doing: 'How it is today is fine. It doesn't matter whether these ISIS brides or Dr Jihad come back into Australia. There's nothing we can do. It's just going to happen.' I don't accept that for a minute. To that end, we are supportive of the elements of this legislation, as outlined by Senator Hanson. Of course, we do have some concerns, but concerns are to be worked through. If we're serious about getting into the business of protecting Australian people, then parties like the government, with all of their resources, could work with One Nation to improve any concerns they might have about the legislation. Senator Hanson has said that the concerns raised by government aren't an issue, and any proponent of any bit of legislation can say that. I would do the same about my own bill. But, if concerns are held, highlight what they are and find a way to fix them. Doing nothing is not the answer. We will have more of the same.

It is important to note, though, that, in the committee report, there were some concerns raised, not relating to constitutionality. That is one of the areas of concern, but I do note the comments of Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper of the National Security College, who raised a number of concerns about the bill. The report reads:

She made the point that the term 'protect the Australian community' is used throughout the bill while not being 'adequately defined and likely to capture a range of behaviours and views not legitimately the domain of regulation in a representative democracy.'

Associate Professor Ireland-Piper also indicated that it was not clear from the bill what 'behaviours or concerns' would constitute a declaration and application to the Court for a Foreign Terrorist Fighter Exclusion (FTFE) Order which are not already … captured by the existing Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) regime.

So there are issues there that we need to highlight and that we do need to look at, and, if there is a pathway to deal with these concerns—Associate Professor Ireland-Piper has expertise in national security and comes from the National Security College and is someone who would know a thing or two about what it takes to protect our country and how we can improve laws—then we should look at that. That is what this chamber and the committees of this chamber are tasked with.

As I say, we support doing something. Is this perfect? Well, there are some out there who say, 'No, it's not,' but our job is to improve it, not do nothing—which is, sadly, the government's approach here. I think it is important that we back in any measure that will protect our country. We have to back in anyone who puts their life on the line to protect our country. Our veterans, our national security officials—anyone who seeks to stamp out the evil in our community, whoever they are and whatever political allegiance they may have. First and foremost, we are Australians, and we should all band together to stop evil people, like the ones this bill contemplates, from doing the harms to this country that they seek to do. And anyone who lays down their life, who puts their life in the path of danger to protect our country—veterans, national security officials, and colleagues in this place, past and present—should not be denigrated.

With that, of course we will support the vote on this legislation. It does something; this government does nothing. We remain in harm's way. I look forward to further consideration of this bill.

Well, here we go: the performance art of One Nation, with their little tame poodles in the coalition. I knew where the coalition was going to vote, because One Nation has already told them where they're going to vote. I watched them yesterday, on the social media ban. It looked like the coalition were actually going to support the legislation to put increased penalties on big tech, and they were about to come over here and vote for it. But then they saw, out of the corner of their eye, that One Nation were going to oppose it, and you could see them flip on the floor. It's like a complete jelly of a political position.

Listen to what the coalition says—'Oh, there are problems with the bill,' and 'Oh, someone says this won't work and that won't work.' But at the end of the day, you could just ignore all the guff, because they haven't got the guts to stand up to One Nation and their completely unprincipled, unconstitutional performance guff that they bring in on this. It's just pathetic; it is utterly pathetic, watching the coalition in this place—utterly contemptible. I'd say to everyone: watch the vision yesterday on the vote. Watch what happened. They were all trotting over here to vote for it, and then, out of the corner of their eye, they saw their marching orders from One Nation. What's the point of the coalition? I can't work it out.

And this lot—One Nation—are bringing in a piece of legislation that they know is unconstitutional, that they know is going to get struck down by the courts. If it ever does pass—and I hope it won't—it'll have the shelf life of a prawn sandwich in a Canberra summer. They know that. It's got about 15 minutes on it before it turns off and makes you sick. That's what they're bringing in here. But they don't care, because it's actually not about policy for them. It's not about whatever they say about protecting Australians. That's not their agenda; they know it won't work. All this is about is clickbait, and it's about driving down their little toxic algorithms, because they think the Elon Musk acceleration plan will get their unconstitutional guff and their outrage politics—their little algorithm—going, and maybe they'll season it with their other disgraceful attacks on people.

That's what they're doing. That's what this is about. It's not about policy. It's not about law. It's about their nasty little unprincipled attacks. They'll come out and call people who serve this country traitors. Look at this lot; look at them. That's what they are. We're seeing them for what they are: unprincipled, do anything, drag our politics down to the lowest possible ebb. That's what this is all about.

Then they have the gall to come in here and say they care about holding ISIS fighters to account. My party does care. My party wants to see ISIS fighters taken into court, prosecuted and held to account. That's why I went off to north-east Syria to meet with the people who defeated ISIS—not like this lot, who went for a nice little holiday with a billionaire at a poolside resort in Sicily. That wasn't me. That was the leader of One Nation, going off on a billionaire funded jaunt at some luxury poolside. That's what the leader of One Nation was doing. I'll tell you what I did: I went and met the people who defeated ISIS. They died defeating ISIS. And they didn't die in their tens; they died in their thousands, going into the battlefield and defeating ISIS. I thought that's where you might learn how to defeat this kind of toxic ideology—actually meeting with the people who went in on the ground, in the dust, in the dirt and fought the fight and beat ISIS.

Do you know what they say about One Nation? They say this is contemptible, disgusting, base politics that will do nothing to keep the world safe. I'll tell you what would keep the world safe: all the things this mob oppose. We need to fund international tribunals, the International Criminal Court, who can actually hold the trials to bring these people to account and put them in jail for their crimes, and actually fund the justice system. This is what happens. This is what you find out when you go and you speak to the people who, unlike these pontificating low-life politicians who will do anything for a clickbait, actually defeated ISIS.

For example, the Co-Chair of the Department of External Affairs in the Democratic Autonomous Administration for North and East Syria, a bloke called Bedran Çiya Kurd—one of the people who actually put a uniform on, went in and fought ISIS. He says none of One Nation's guff, none of the talk. This is what this is what Bedran says—I want to be clear; this is the administration that is keeping ISIS fighters in detention, because they saw the crimes that they did, and they're in their country, and they're keeping them in detention. It doesn't matter which country they came from. These are the people actually keeping us safe. These are the people, not One Nation and their pontification, their politics and their attacking of Australians. It's not that lot. They're not doing it. These are the people who are doing it, and this is what they say:

We can no longer keep these prisoners without an indictment or trial. These people must be held accountable for their crimes. They remain a danger not only to the region, but to the entire world. These are thousands of the most brutal ISIS fighters. We cannot keep them anymore. It is creating a security problem for our region.

Why aren't we listening to the people on the ground? Why aren't we funding the tribunals that can actually hold the trials, hear the evidence and issue the penalties? It's because this lot hate that. There's not a single cent that they would spend on having the trials, holding the ISIS fighters to account, convicting them of their crimes and then keeping them in detention. They hate that entire project, and that's why they come in here with their distraction politics, their unconstitutional legislation that's got the shelf life of a prawn sandwich on a hot Canberra day. That's why they do this.

I'll tell you what Bedran says—not One Nation, not the pontificators over here and not the hot air bunch over here, but the people who fought and defeated ISIS. This is what he says:

We gave more than 13,000 martyrs in this fight to defeat ISIS—

Just stopping there, how different are they to One Nation? They gave more than 13,000 martyrs to fight ISIS. They're the people we should be listening to, not someone who goes off on a jaunt with a billionaire to a luxury poolside Sicilian resort. Talk to the people on the ground, who lost 13,000 martyrs in the fight against ISIS. He says this:

And we have thousands of wounded, injured, and disabled, who have sacrificed. This is why it is important to get justice. But we also want to keep international standards for these trials.

ISIS is reorganizing itself and getting stronger … Two years ago, we had to carry out 113 operations against ISIS sleeper cells and we arrested 260 members. But in the previous year, we have had to carry out more than 2,000 such operations.

These are the people on the ground fighting, still doing it.

No wonder that the leader of One Nation didn't go out and actually visit Syria. I think she tried to, but no-one would meet with her, because they have complete contempt for her and complete contempt for the politics of One Nation. Maybe it was that Channel 7 wouldn't pay for it. Maybe Kerry Stokes wouldn't pay for it. Maybe they couldn't get Gina to pay for a luxury tour to Syria. That's why they didn't go and meet with them. They were too busy drinking champagne and going to a fashion show in Milan—too busy doing that to actually get out and talk with the people who defeated ISIS. There was a lot of puff. Do you remember that? 'I'm going to go and talk and go onto the ground.' It ended up being, 'No, I'd rather go to a fashion show in Milan,' because actually that's their class. That's One Nation's class—the entitled billionaire class who they go schmoozing with around the world and who are backing in this kind of politics.

It turns out the entitled class like this kind of distraction politics. They don't care if it's unconstitutional. They don't care if it won't protect Australians. 'Just go and do your distraction politics over here so they can keep their profits and keep gouging us.' That's why they shared their champagne on some poolside in a Sicilian resort. That's why they went together to their fashion show in Milan. It's because they share values with the billionaire class. They love it.

Maybe you should go and talk not to the billionaire class but to the people who defeated ISIS. Maybe they're who we should take our advice from. This is what Bedran also says:

We have called up the international community and asked them for support. But they have all failed to respond or assist us with these ISIS trials. The struggle against terror cannot only be carried out literally on the battlefield, but it must be confronted in a court of law. So far, the fight and struggle against terrorism was only on the military level. But this is not sufficient. We need to address it on the security and judiciary level but also understand its social origins. We must defeat terrorism holistically.

The Greens support backing in this lot, backing in the ones who fought and defeated ISIS and who actually have a plan to hold these fighters to account, to create the trials and to deliver justice for all of the victims. I can't tell you what a contrast that is. These are good and brave people who lost their friends, who lost their family and who actually know how to defeat ISIS. Reflect on this for a moment—the contrast between them and a bunch of clickbait politicians who sit on a poolside in Sicily with a billionaire. Whose side do you reckon you should be on in this fight?

Please don't tell me I have to spend another five years listening to this nonsense. The Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026 exists because the Albanese government failed in the first duty of any government: keeping Australians safe. They failed to stop people who attached themselves to Islamic State from coming back to this country. That's pretty important, I think. They failed to act on the so-called ISIS brides, they built a pathway for their return and they told this chamber they were providing no assistance to this cohort.

But, lo and behold, the women, these terrorists, are back. Then the conversation changed. Suddenly, it was not about assistance. It was about documents. It was about the obligations of the government and how hamstrung they were. These are not victims. They are hateful people who went to fight for, live under or support a terrorist caliphate. If you are the government and the law says that you must accommodate them, the law is deficient. You are the government; change the law. This government would not. That is why One Nation brought this bill.

Labor's line was always the same: no repatriation, no assistance and no government operation. I asked Minister Watt again and again what assistance was being provided. He kept deflecting and playing semantic games. He kept deliberately obscuring the issue in this chamber. The Prime Minister said nobody in the government was in contact with the cohort. The home affairs minister said the same. Then they were back in the country. Two women and four children came in quietly in September 2025. Later waves followed. In May 2026, groups landed in Sydney and Melbourne. In June, the last Australian woman held in the Syrian camps, previously stopped by a temporary exclusion order, was told a return permit would be issued because her lawyers had applied and the minister said the law required it. What a disgrace this government has become.

Watch the language shift. First, we are not helping; the government is providing no assistance to this cohort. Then we have to provide them with the documents—passports, citizenship by descent for the children born in Syria, processing at the airport. That is a pathway. Meeting notes obtained under freedom of information and placed before estimates record the home affairs minister telling Save the Children there may be a way to achieve the same outcome without government undertakings, thanking the group in connection with media silence and asking a departmental official to leave so a frank discussion could continue without a record.

The dissenting report to the inquiry on this bill sets that out. It is not a courtroom verdict; it's the government's own paper trail. A government that conducts that kind of a meeting, then tells the public it is doing nothing and then watches the cohort walk into Sydney and Melbourne has no right to talk about the protection and safety of Australians—not that these folks will ever be placed in their backyards. The government failed to act. It failed to change the law. Why will it not protect Australians?

It is time that Labor took Islamic extremism with the seriousness that it deserves. But look at the farcical way they've handled the royal commission. The Prime Minister and Minister Burke can't even bear to face themselves—not very brave. If you fight for ISIS, you should not come back. That is not complicated. That is the expectation of the people who pay the taxes. It's the expectation of the veterans we sent to fight this regime and of the families that feared for their safety while they were deployed. Labor did not stop them. On the public record, Labor issued the documents that made the last legs of the journey possible and then called it 'absence of assistance'. Australians can hear the difference. Some will say it is ugly to ask whether electoral arithmetic played a part. The question will be asked anyway.

Watson, the Home Affairs Minister's own electorate, has one of the highest Muslim populations in any seat in the country, around a quarter on the most recent census figures and higher a more recent counts used in the last election campaign. Do I think Minister Burke has the moral fortitude to put his job on the line to do the right thing? Sadly, his actions answer that question. It is a complete failure of this government in its solemn duty to keep Australians safe.

One Nation will keep Australia safe. One Nation will keep terrorists out. This isn't a tagline for us; we've done the work to make it a reality despite our restricted resourcing. The government has hundreds of ministerial staffers. The Department of Home Affairs is a vast machine. One Nation, by contrast, is critically understaffed. We grew in this parliament. We doubled our Senate numbers after the 2025 election, and the party room grew further, with no extra personal staff allocation to match—four personal staff across six parliamentarians. We represent a large and growing portion of this country without the resources the majors take for granted. Yet with those resources we have done the work the government could not do or refused to do. We've developed a robust mechanism for a Home Affairs minister who actually wants to keep these people out.

Let's look at this bill. Schedule 1 does not repeal temporary exclusion orders. It adds a court based foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. The minister may determine that an application should go to the Federal Court only if a temporary exclusion order or an existing court order is already in force, and only if the minister suspects on reasonable grounds that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily served with, participated in or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation. 'Voluntarily' is there to exclude coercion, duress and trafficking. The determination is personal to the minister. It cannot be delegated. Return permit obligations are suspended but only for 90 days unless an application is filed. The court may make an order only if satisfied of three things: first, on the balance of probabilities that the person, while outside Australia, voluntarily served with, took part in the activities of or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation; second, that the person would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of Australian communities if permitted to enter; and third, that no less restrictive measure would be effective, including a conditional return permit or monitoring after entry.

Community protection is paramount, as it should be. The court must consider any ASIO assessment and security agency advice provided. An order cannot exceed two years and can only be extended with a new case brought before the court. Entering Australia while an order is in force is an offence carrying 10 years in prison. These are the powers that the minister didn't bother considering because he wasn't concerned with protecting Australians.

Schedule 2 tightens the terrorism bill. This bill requires the bail authority to treat community protection and national security as paramount and not to find exceptional circumstances unless satisfied that release would not pose an unacceptable risk of further terrorism offending. Family circumstances, housing, electronic monitoring and ordinary delay do not by themselves meet the test.

Schedule 3 lets the minister refuse, cancel or suspend travel documents on four exhaustive grounds: a temporary exclusion order, a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order, a ministerial determination is made that a foreign terrorist exclusion order application to the court could be made, or a terrorism charge or conviction.

Schedule 4 makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of a person who has committed a terrorism offence or the declared-area offence, who is known to intend an offence before entry or who is, or has been, a member of a terrorist organisation, unless the actor is the Commonwealth or has written permission from both relevant ministers. This closes the Labor government's loophole, where they can claim that they aren't providing assistance while empowering third parties to do their dirty work.

Schedule 5 makes the protective orders capable of looking at precommencement conduct, because the question is present risk. It is to keep anyone who has been involved in terrorism out of Australia from right now.

However, the facilitation offence is not retrospective. That is the mechanism. It is robust and will stand up to judicial scrutiny.

It has been to a committee. The Labor chaired committee recommended that the Senate not pass the bill. Unbelievable. They've said, 'Existing temporary exclusion orders are enough,' which is a strange response considering the government just finished telling us how hamstrung the home affairs minister is. Or do they mean that they are happy with the terrorists coming into Australia, so nothing needs to change?

They claim it is unconstitutional. That's a bit rich coming from the party that just lost a constitutional challenge over the NZYQ cohort. Labor love to lecture us on areas that they are completely clueless on. Just ask them about controlling inflation. On the court objection, Labor's talking point is that the bill will not last 30 seconds in the High Court. Minister Watt told this place that any extension of temporary exclusion orders would be knocked over and would put Australians at greater risk. The Senate ordered the production of the advice behind the claim. The government produced an article from the Sydney Morning Heraldnot departmental advice or the Solicitor-General but a paper clipping. What utter disdain for the Australian people!

Constitutional professor Anne Twomey has said publicly that the constitutional argument about whether an Australian citizen has a guaranteed right to enter and live in Australia has never been argued before the High Court, so we don't know the answer. That is not a 30-second knockout; that is an undecided question. No submitter to this inquiry concluded that the High Court would strike the scheme down. The bill was written around judicial power, limited time, lesser-measure analysis and an onus on the minister, because these are the features the High Court has accepted in other protective regimes.

If Labor has a better option, table it. Until then, 'the High Court will smash it' is a political sentence, not a solution. What is the alternative? Say and do nothing? Follow the Greens? Sneak them back in and call passports a technicality?

They want to say the current exclusion powers are sufficient. Then how did they get back in? How did the last woman on a temporary exclusion order move from exclusion to a permit the minister said he had to issue? If the tool works, use it to keep them out. If the tool can't keep them out, the tool is not enough. That is the gap this bill fills. The existing scheme is a managed-return scheme. The bill asks whether some people should be brought home at all.

Those who fled ISIS to settle in Australia know just how necessary these powers are. Islamic State's crimes were committed against identifiable families now living here. Survivors of genocide, sexual slavery and forced displacement should not have to share suburbs with the people that contributed to their displacement on the say-so of a minister who has reached their legal limit.

One Nation is here to protect Australians. Terrorists who've fought against Australians should never be allowed to return as if nothing happened. This place should be staunch in its defence of Australia. The country will not forgive a failure to act, and it should not.

Labor had the numbers, the staff, the agency and the years. It chose a form of words: 'no assistance'. Then it processed the paper that brought them home. The coalition, on this committee, unfortunately joined the recommendation to kill the bill. This is how a uniparty behaves when the politics are uncomfortable and when their legal advice is the Sydney Morning Herald.

One Nation is here to be the bulwark for Australia's needs. Pass the bill, put the question to a court, put community safety first, and stop telling Australians to watch people who chose Islamic State walk back through the arrival gates because nobody in this building would change the laws.

I rise in opposition to the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, but I do support the right of senators in this place to put forward policy ideas, to have their ideas examined and to have experts in the community contribute to their thinking. I'm concerned that this was not the case here.

There is a real issue for debate here. How do we, as a country, deal with Australians returning after making the decision to travel to and in some cases support terrorist organisations? It's a nuanced issue, one where reasonable minds can reach different conclusions.

As I said, I'm concerned that debate over what One Nation has put forward has been unjustifiably curtailed. There were only two weeks for submissions to this bill, which resulted in just 13 submissions—just five from named individuals or associations. There were no public hearings. There was no justification for preventing a more detailed interrogation of the bill. I think we, as elected representatives, should be able to engage in good faith on policy ideas and then make our own minds up on behalf of our states and territories as to where we decide to land and then vote.

The evidence from Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper of the National Security College at the ANU raised several concerns with the bill. Senator Duniam has raised many of these, and I'll not repeat them in detail in my contribution. In short, real concerns are raised around vague language around the phrase 'protect the Australian community' and what behaviours or concerns would constitute a declaration and application to the court for a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. These in themselves are fatal to the bill.

Concerns were also raised about constitutionality. These are concerns that need to be taken seriously, although we have seen a number of bills supported by the major parties which have been challenged and defeated in the High Court. I think that's something to consider.

This is quite aside from some of the issues around subverting our own criminal justice system and potentially dividing our community, pitting Australians against each other, and I want to be clear that I call those out. I do not support this bill—I will vote against it—but I certainly support the Senate in ensuring that all parties and independent senators have an opportunity for their policy ideas to be properly scrutinised.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.