Did not passDefence & Security Introduced in the Senate, 12 Aug 2026 by HANSON, Sen Pauline

Senate voted down Hanson's terrorist fighter ban

Senator Pauline Hanson leads One Nation, a minor party. Her bill would have let a court ban people who fought for terrorist groups overseas from coming home. It would have made bail and passports harder to get. The Senate voted it down on 10 September 2026.

Official name: Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026

Who it affects

• Australians who fought for or helped terrorist groups overseas: A court could have banned them from coming back to Australia for up to 2 years at a time.
• People charged with or found guilty of terrorism crimes: Bail would have been harder to get. Their passports could have been cancelled.
• People who help someone travel to Australia: Helping a person linked to terrorism get into Australia without the okay of two ministers would have been a crime.
• Families of people overseas: A relative under an order could have been kept away from them for as long as the order lasted.

Fighters returning from terror groups

Some Australians have gone overseas and joined terrorist groups. A law from 2019 already lets the government stop some of them coming straight home.

That law created the temporary exclusion order. It is an order from the minister. It says a person cannot come into Australia for a time. The person can only come back with a return permit. The permit can have conditions.

Senator Pauline Hanson brought this bill to the Senate on 12 August 2026. It is a private bill. That means it did not come from the government. She wrote notes to explain it. They say the bill would make it easier to stop some people coming back. These are people who served with, took part in or supported listed terrorist groups overseas.

The bill changed four laws, in five parts.

Court order banning fighters

Part 1 kept the temporary exclusion order. It added a stronger one called a foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order. Only the Federal Court of Australia could make it.

The steps would start with the minister. The person must already have an exclusion order. The minister must also have good reason to suspect they served with or supported a listed terrorist group overseas. Then the minister could decide to ask the court for the new order. Only the minister in person could make that call.

While that decision was in place, the minister would not have to deal with the person's request for a return permit. This pause could last up to 90 days if no court case was started. If a case was started, the pause would last until the case and any appeal ended.

The court could make the order only if it was sure of three things. The person chose to serve with, take part in or support a listed terrorist group overseas. The person would be too big a risk to Australians if let in. No softer step, such as a return permit with conditions, would keep people safe.

Anyone forced, threatened or trafficked into a group would not count. Trafficked means taken by force or tricks. The court would have to treat community safety as the most important thing. For someone under 18, it would also have to weigh what is best for the young person.

An order could last up to 2 years. A new order would need a fresh court case. The person or the minister could ask the court to change or cancel it at any time.

Coming into Australia while an order was in place would be a crime. It could mean up to 10 years in jail. Some people could still be brought back under a return permit. These are people being sent out of another country, sent to face charges or moved as prisoners.

Secret security information could be protected in court under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004. That law protects secret security details in court. The person could take part by video link from overseas.

Harder bail for terrorism

Bail means being let out of custody, or jail, while you wait for your trial. Under the Crimes Act 1914, the main national crime law, people charged with terrorism crimes already cannot get bail in most cases. They can only get it if there are exceptional circumstances.

Part 2 would have made the person deciding bail treat community safety and national security as the most important things. They would also need to be sure the person was not too big a risk of committing a terrorism crime.

Some reasons would not count as exceptional on their own. These were caring for children or family and family situations. They were having somewhere to live and being able to wear an electronic tracker. Normal court delays would not count either. A judge could still weigh them with other facts.

The rules would apply to state and territory courts dealing with national terrorism cases too. Young people under 18 would keep the rule that what is best for them is a main thing to weigh.

Passports

Right now, the minister usually acts on passports for security reasons when another agency asks. Some short holds on passports last only 28 days. They need a request from the head of the domestic spy agency.

Part 3 would have let the minister refuse, cancel or put on hold an Australian passport alone. There were four reasons. The person was under a temporary exclusion order. They were under the new court order, or the minister had decided to seek one. Or they were charged with or found guilty of a terrorism crime.

A refusal or cancellation could be looked at again by the Administrative Review Tribunal. That body checks government decisions, like a court but less formal. A hold could not be reviewed. But it would have to end once no reason applied.

Some papers would still be given out. These are papers needed to bring a person back under a return permit, or when they are sent back to face charges.

New crime of helping them

Part 4 copied a bill from Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam word for word. That bill is the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

It would have made it a crime to plan or help someone's trip into Australia from overseas in some cases. These were where that person had committed a terrorism crime or planned to. They also included where the person had been a member of a terrorist group. The most jail time was 10 years.

It would not apply to the national government or people acting for it. It would also not apply if two ministers had both said yes in writing first. They are the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

Say a relative books flights and sorts out papers for a family member who fought for a listed group. Without that written okay, the relative could have been charged.

Part 4 also kept the laws on declared areas going longer. These laws make it a crime to go to some overseas areas where terrorist groups are active. They were due to end on 7 September 2027. The bill pushed that to 7 September 2030.

Past conduct and timing

Part 5 said the court orders could be based on things a person did before the law started. The notes say this is because the orders deal with future risk.

The bail rules would apply to bail decisions made after the start date. The passport power would cover reasons from before or after. The crime of helping someone come in would only cover help given after the law started.

The law would have started the day after it was signed into law. That is done by the Governor-General, the King's representative.

Voted down in the Senate

Senator Hanson brought the bill into the Senate on 12 August 2026. The Senate is the second house of Parliament. It debated the bill on 10 September 2026. That day it voted against the main idea of the bill.

Because it was voted down, the bill will not become law.

How they voted

Its journey through Parliament

Official sources

• Bill page on aph.gov.au
• Text of the bill
• Explanatory memorandum

Open the full interactive page