One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has urged the Coalition to work alongside her party on sweeping new counter-terrorism legislation, arguing that Parliament should act immediately to prevent Australians linked to the Islamic State from returning home if legally possible.

The proposal comes after reports that former Adelaide paediatrician Tareq Kamleh—widely known as “Doctor Jihad”—is alive in an Iraqi prison despite previously being believed dead following the collapse of the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate.

Kamleh travelled to Syria in 2015, where he became one of the most recognisable Australian faces associated with ISIS propaganda. Australian authorities have long sought his arrest on terrorism-related offences should he ever return to Australia. Recent reports that he survived the war in Syria and is now being held in Iraq have reignited debate about how Australia should deal with citizens who joined terrorist organisations overseas.

In a letter addressed to Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, Hanson said One Nation was prepared to support legislation designed to strengthen Australia’s national security framework and close what she described as legal loopholes surrounding ISIS-linked Australians.

She argued that protecting Australians should override political differences and invited the Coalition to work with her party in Parliament.

“Let’s make a deal,” Hanson reportedly wrote, offering One Nation’s parliamentary support for measures aimed at preventing the return of Australians who had joined or assisted terrorist organisations overseas.

The letter reportedly proposes a package of reforms extending well beyond Kamleh’s individual case.

Among the measures Hanson wants considered are stronger Temporary Exclusion Orders, expanded passport cancellation powers, tougher post-release monitoring arrangements, broader surveillance authorities and legislative changes affecting citizenship and terrorism-related offences where constitutionally possible.

She also argues Australia should maximise every legal avenue available to ensure people who voluntarily joined ISIS cannot simply return to Australian society after serving time overseas.

The renewed debate follows confirmation that Iraqi authorities are continuing to investigate Kamleh, who allegedly remained active within ISIS after travelling from Australia more than a decade ago.

Court documents reported by Australian media indicate Iraqi investigators believe his activities extended beyond medical work, alleging he also promoted extremist ideology and assisted the terrorist organisation’s operations. Kamleh denies some allegations, but Australian authorities have outstanding terrorism charges against him should he return.

The Albanese Government has maintained that Australia will not actively facilitate the return of ISIS fighters, while also acknowledging that constitutional and international legal obligations limit the government’s ability to permanently exclude Australian citizens from their own country.

That legal distinction sits at the heart of the current political dispute.

Successive Australian governments have introduced increasingly strict counter-terrorism laws since the emergence of ISIS, including offences relating to foreign incursions, declared areas, terrorist recruitment, financing terrorism and advocating terrorism.

Authorities also possess powers to cancel passports, monitor suspects, impose control orders and prosecute returning foreign fighters under existing legislation.

However, permanently preventing an Australian citizen from entering Australia presents significant constitutional and legal challenges.

Legal experts have consistently argued that citizenship carries an inherent right of entry that governments cannot simply revoke by executive decision alone. Instead, returning individuals can be arrested immediately upon arrival if sufficient evidence exists, prosecuted under Australian law and subjected to ongoing control measures where appropriate.

That legal reality has frustrated many politicians advocating an even tougher approach.

Angus Taylor has repeatedly argued that every available legal mechanism should be used to prevent ISIS-linked Australians from returning, describing Kamleh as someone who should never again enjoy the protections of Australian society.

Meanwhile, senior government ministers have also condemned Kamleh in the strongest possible terms while maintaining that the government must operate within Australia’s constitutional framework.

Defence and national security ministers have declined to comment on operational intelligence surrounding Kamleh’s detention, but Labor has consistently said any returning ISIS member would face the full force of Australian law.

Hanson argues that this position does not go far enough.

She believes Parliament should revisit Australia’s legislative framework to ensure every constitutional power available is used to prevent individuals associated with terrorist organisations from returning or, where return cannot legally be stopped, to ensure they face the strictest possible controls immediately upon arrival.

Her proposal also carries political significance beyond national security.

One Nation has increasingly sought to position itself as the strongest parliamentary advocate for tougher immigration, border protection and counter-terrorism measures. The party argues that both Labor and the Coalition have, at different times, failed to take sufficiently hard positions on issues involving foreign fighters and national security.

For Hanson, publicly inviting Angus Taylor to cooperate creates both a policy challenge and a political one.

If the Coalition accepts the invitation, One Nation can claim its influence has helped shape the national security agenda. If the Coalition rejects it, Hanson is likely to argue that political rivalry has been placed ahead of public safety.

The timing is also significant because national attention has returned to the issue of ISIS following confirmation that multiple Australian men linked to the terrorist organisation remain detained in Iraqi prisons.

According to recent reports, Kamleh is one of 13 Australian men currently being held in Iraq whose long-term legal future remains uncertain. While there has been no announcement that any of the men will imminently return to Australia, the possibility has prompted renewed political debate across Canberra.

The discovery that Kamleh is still alive has reopened a debate that has surfaced repeatedly since the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Australia was among a number of Western nations forced to confront difficult questions about citizens who travelled overseas to support extremist organisations. While hundreds of foreign fighters from dozens of countries joined ISIS during the height of the conflict, governments have adopted varying approaches to dealing with those who survived.

Some countries have actively repatriated citizens to face prosecution at home. Others have resisted their return wherever possible, arguing that individuals who voluntarily joined a terrorist organisation should remain subject to legal proceedings in the countries where they were captured.

Australia has generally taken a cautious approach. Successive governments have prioritised criminal prosecutions where evidence permits while avoiding policies that could conflict with constitutional protections or international legal obligations.

Temporary Exclusion Orders remain one of the principal tools available to the Commonwealth. These orders allow authorities to regulate the timing and conditions under which certain Australian citizens suspected of terrorism-related activities may return to Australia. They do not permanently ban re-entry but instead enable the government to manage security risks through controlled return arrangements.

Security agencies have also relied on a broad range of additional measures introduced over the past decade, including passport cancellations, citizenship cessation provisions in limited circumstances, control orders, continuing detention orders for eligible terrorist offenders and expanded intelligence-sharing arrangements with international partners.

Despite those powers, critics argue that Australia’s legal framework still leaves too much uncertainty when dealing with individuals who willingly aligned themselves with terrorist organisations overseas.

Hanson has long maintained that the law should place greater emphasis on protecting the Australian community rather than preserving the rights of people who deliberately joined organisations responsible for acts of terrorism.

She argues that anyone who pledged allegiance to ISIS effectively rejected Australian values and should not expect to return without facing the strongest legal consequences available.

Her latest proposal builds on years of advocacy by One Nation for tougher border protection, stricter immigration policies and expanded national security legislation.

The challenge directed at Angus Taylor also comes at a politically significant moment. Following the federal election, the Coalition is rebuilding under new leadership while attempting to redefine its policy priorities and relationship with crossbench parties.

National security has traditionally been an area where bipartisan cooperation has been common, particularly following major terrorist incidents. However, disagreements often emerge over how far Parliament should go in expanding executive powers while preserving constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight.

Whether the Coalition chooses to formally engage with Hanson’s proposal remains to be seen. Even if both parties were to agree on broad policy objectives, drafting legislation capable of surviving constitutional scrutiny would present a significant legal challenge.

Australian constitutional law limits the Commonwealth’s ability to permanently exile citizens. Any legislation attempting to impose a blanket prohibition on returning Australians would almost certainly face close examination by the High Court if challenged.

Legal experts have frequently noted that national security legislation must balance public safety with the rule of law, particularly where citizenship rights and criminal justice principles are involved.

That tension has shaped Australia’s counter-terrorism framework for more than two decades.

Following the September 11 attacks in the United States and later terrorist incidents in Bali, London, Sydney and elsewhere, successive Australian governments introduced dozens of counter-terrorism laws expanding investigative powers, preventative detention measures, financing offences and border security arrangements.

The rise of ISIS prompted another significant wave of legislative reform as hundreds of Australians were investigated over potential links to extremist networks operating in Iraq and Syria.

Authorities estimate that more than 200 Australians travelled or attempted to travel to the Middle East to support extremist groups during the height of the conflict. Many were killed, while others remain detained overseas or have already returned and faced prosecution under Australian law.

The Kamleh case has attracted particular attention because of his previous prominence in ISIS propaganda. Before leaving Australia, he worked as a paediatrician in Adelaide. After arriving in Syria, he appeared in professionally produced propaganda videos encouraging other medical professionals to support the terrorist organisation and publicly endorsed ISIS leadership.

Those broadcasts made him one of Australia’s most recognisable ISIS figures and led to terrorism charges being laid against him in his absence.

His reported survival has therefore become more than an isolated legal matter. It has evolved into a broader political symbol in the debate over Australia’s ability to respond to citizens who voluntarily joined one of the world’s most notorious terrorist organisations.

For Labor, the issue is likely to reinforce its longstanding position that Australia’s existing legal framework already provides extensive powers to investigate, prosecute and monitor terrorism suspects while remaining consistent with constitutional principles.

For the Coalition, the issue presents an opportunity to argue for stronger security settings while avoiding proposals that may prove legally unenforceable.

For One Nation, it offers another chance to campaign on one of the party’s core themes: that Australia’s national security laws should place maximum emphasis on protecting the community from extremist threats.

Whether Hanson’s invitation results in formal parliamentary negotiations remains uncertain. There has been no indication that the Coalition has accepted her proposal or committed to introducing the package of reforms she advocates.

Any legislative changes would also require detailed legal drafting, parliamentary debate and, depending on their scope, could face scrutiny from constitutional experts, parliamentary committees and the courts.

Even so, the political significance of Hanson’s challenge extends beyond the fate of any individual bill.

It highlights the continuing sensitivity surrounding foreign fighters more than a decade after Australians first travelled to join ISIS. It also underscores how national security remains one of the few policy areas capable of reshaping political alliances across Parliament when questions of public safety, citizenship and constitutional authority intersect.

As debate continues over the future of Australia’s counter-terrorism framework, the case of Tareq Kamleh is likely to remain central to discussions about how the nation should respond when citizens accused of supporting terrorist organisations seek to return home.

For now, Hanson has placed her proposal squarely before the Coalition. Whether it becomes the basis for a new parliamentary alliance—or simply another point of political disagreement—will depend on how Australia’s major parties choose to balance security, constitutional law and the enduring public expectation that those who joined ISIS should face the strongest response the law allows.