Serious concerns have been raised over national security laws that can block an Australian citizen from entering the nation if they're a suspected terrorist risk.
Temporary exclusion orders can be made to prevent an Australian from returning for up to two years if the home affairs minister reasonably suspects the person could become involved in terrorist activities.
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay said the orders should only be made against a person who had been part of terrorist activities.
She said the laws had been used to target relatives or associates of Australian foreign fighters who might not have engaged in criminal conduct.
"Australian citizens who are not themselves involved in terrorism, should not be prevented from returning to Australia," she told a parliamentary committee reviewing the laws on Monday.
The Australian Human Rights Commission said other national security legislation could fill any gaps in reducing the risk of terrorist activities from a returned citizen.
This includes increased police monitoring and restrictions on those who could pose a risk to the community.
Ms Finlay also raised concerns about the minister making the decision, saying a court should make the orders.
This would allow for additional safeguards and the ability for the order to be legally reviewed.
Law Council of Australia members agreed, including former NSW director of public prosecutions Lloyd Babb.
"It gives a higher confidence in the level of independence and necessary skills to balance the rights and risks," Mr Babb said.
"We've made a grave mistake by making it an executive decision."
The Law Council's David Neal said the information given to the minister by security agencies could be inaccurate and there was no opportunity for review in the case of mistaken identity or a wrong determination.
Having the minister predict the likelihood of a future offence without prior crimes being proven also raised alarms.
"It's the eternal dilemma of predicting the future," Dr Neal said.
He says the laws need to be "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" and the evidence on the public record does not support how far-reaching the powers are.
"There's no evidence to justify this scheme at the moment," Dr Neal said.
