One Nation’s Bid to Ban ISIS Fighters from Australia Faces Constitutional Backlash: Expert Warns of ‘Serious Hurdles’ Ahead
- A new bill aimed at blocking former ISIS fighters and supporters from returning to Australia is set to be introduced by Pauline Hanson, but experts warn it may be unconstitutional
- The proposal could clash with Australia’s obligations under international law and create technical difficulties for the courts
- Labor raises concerns that refusing to accept Australian citizens could compromise the country’s ability to deport foreign criminals and co-operate with other nations
- Dr Danielle Ireland-Piper, a national security law expert, says the proposal is “unlikely to be constitutional or permissible at international law”
As Parliament returns on Tuesday, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is set to introduce legislation aimed at strengthening powers to cancel or refuse passports and tightening bail laws for people facing terrorism charges.
However, the proposal has already sparked serious concerns over its constitutionality and potential consequences for Australia’s international relationships.
At the heart of the issue is the question of whether it is permissible to permanently ban a citizen from returning to their own country.
Dr Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor at the ANU National Security College, warns that such a move would be “unlikely to be constitutional or permissible at international law”.
She points to Australia’s separation of powers, which limits Parliament’s ability to impose punishment that should be determined by a court.
The proposal also raises concerns about Australia’s obligations under international law, particularly when it comes to prosecuting citizens accused of committing crimes overseas.
“In some ways, there’s a moral responsibility on Australia to bring people back here to prosecute if they have engaged in criminal conduct,” Ireland-Piper notes.
This could create a Catch-22 situation, where Australia is forced to choose between its international obligations and its desire to keep certain individuals out of the country.
Furthermore, Labor has raised concerns that refusing to accept Australian citizens could have wider consequences for the country’s ability to deport foreign criminals and co-operate with other nations.
Ireland-Piper agrees, noting that countries rely on reciprocal arrangements when dealing with deportations, extraditions, and other cross-border criminal matters.
“If we’re not willing to accept our citizens when they return, that could compromise our agreements with other countries around deportation and extradition and other types of crime cooperation,” she warns.
Analysis: What This Means for Australia
The One Nation proposal highlights the complex and often fraught nature of national security policy. While the desire to keep ISIS fighters and supporters out of the country is understandable, it must be balanced against Australia’s constitutional and international obligations.
If the bill is passed, it is likely to be tested in the High Court, which could have significant implications for the country’s national security framework.
Security analysts say that the proposal is a classic example of the tension between national security and individual rights. “The government needs to be careful not to overstep its authority and compromise the rule of law,” one analyst notes.
“At the same time, it needs to ensure that it is taking all necessary steps to protect the Australian public from potential threats.”
As the debate over the One Nation proposal continues, it is clear that there are no easy answers. However, one thing is certain: the issue of national security will remain a contentious and complex one for Australia in the years to come.
