The control orders limiting Australians returning from Syria, as Coalition warns of Islamic State threat

Many were taken as minors, others coerced or tricked by pro-IS partners. Some travelled willingly, their children stuck in limbo since the terror group's so-called caliphate fell.

The Coalition is warning they'll pose a threat, but Labor insists authorities will keep a watchful eye over them. "These are Australian citizens who are entitled to be [here]," the Prime Minister said on Monday.

The women have all agreed to submit themselves to control orders, incredibly strict court orders giving police sweeping powers to monitor their lives.

So what are they, and why are they controversial?

Strict control.

Someone subjected to a control order can be banned from: communicating with certain people, living in certain areas, and even accessing the internet.

They can be forced to remain at home for 12 hours per day, wear an ankle bracelet, and report their whereabouts to police.

Authorities also have extra powers to conduct searches, and listen in on the person's communications. Counselling and deradicalisation programs are also offered, but that requires the person's consent.

It's a high bar.

Katja Theodorakis, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's counterterrorism program, says they're mainly slapped on people already convicted of terror offences as they leave prison.

But it's broader than that, also applying to anyone who has trained with a listed terrorist organisation, like Islamic State, or engaged in "hostile activity" in a foreign country.

A senior Australian Federal Police member needs to apply for a control. That then has to be signed off by the Home Affairs Minister and the Federal Court.

Because of that high bar, they're rare; just 25 were granted between 2014 and October this year.

That's unclear.

Theodorakis warns whether they're proportionate or effective is in doubt.

"The resource-intensive focus on surveillance and monitoring is said to come at the expense of developing better rehabilitation mechanisms, which is needed for longer-term risk reduction," she says.

The AFP confirmed nine of the 25 individuals placed control orders issued since 2014 have been arrested and charged for breaching their conditions.

The emergence of so-called "lone wolf" attacks, carried out by an individual with very limited links to other extremists, also complicates things.

Stopping an offender communicating with others may be useless if they're operating on their own.

Some legal experts believe they should only be enforced on people convicted of a terrorism offence. That would rule out orders for the women now returning from Syria, who are yet to even be charged.

Others fear they're used as a substitute to actually prosecuting suspects.

And Theodorakis also warns predicting when an extremist will burst into violence is never straightforward.

"Seeing that accurate prediction is notoriously difficult, how can we ensure existing risk assessment tools are up to the job in even more complex situations?" she asks.

READ MORE:

Given how restrictive the orders are, there are ethical concerns over imposing them on women who were taken to Syria as children, and against their will.

But conservative politicians have also warned control orders are too lax, fearing they allow radicalised offenders the freedom to carry out attacks.

Police are also skeptical about them. In 2020, AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw was blunt when asked whether terror suspects should be on the streets. "Most police officers would say no," he said.