Calling for a blanket banning of further Muslim immigration smacks of Trump style, discriminatory and insidious dog-whistling tactics. Attempts to introduce a legislative ban may also be very well inconsistent with the restriction on the making of laws "prohibiting the free exercise of any religion" in section 116 of the Constitution.
Imagine that instead of banning Muslims, we banned Catholics. If you’re Catholic, you can’t migrate to Australia. Surely no court today will ever hold that as constitutional. This is exactly what Pauline Hanson is proposing but against another religious community. This policy aims to legislate an “us vs them” mentality, making Muslims or anyone perceived as Muslim, them.
“Human rights must be at the center of any analysis of migration and xenophobia (ILO, IOM, & OHCHR, 2001).” This quote is from the publication for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances (WCAR). As it states “human rights” is what is crucial, and by using the international standards that have been established to protect human rights seems like the best way to keep them at the center.
The UN General Assembly Third Committee regularly discusses how to deal with xenophobia and racism on the international level (UN General Assembly Third Committee, 2015). One of its treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), states in Article 26:
“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (UN General Assembly, 1966).”
Australia is a signatory of the ICCPR. One Nation's policy is clearly in conflict with Article 26.