Australia’s Full Federal Court has unanimously dismissed Pauline Hanson’s appeal against a finding that she racially discriminated against fellow senator Mehreen Faruqi in a 2022 social-media post. The three-judge panel upheld the conclusion that Hanson’s message breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and was not protected as reasonable, good-faith political comment.
The decision does more than resolve a dispute between two prominent politicians. It confirms that Australia’s protections against racial vilification can apply when race, migrant background and religion overlap, and it rejects the argument that the law impermissibly restricts the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
Australia debates the line between political attack and racial harm
The case began after Faruqi, an Australian senator born in Pakistan, wrote on the day Queen Elizabeth II died that she could not mourn the leader of what she called a racist empire. Hanson replied by telling Faruqi to pack her bags and return to Pakistan, using an expletive in the instruction.
A trial judge ruled in 2024 that the response was not simply an attack on Faruqi’s opinion. It conveyed a nativist message that a migrant could be treated as less Australian and told to leave for criticizing the country. Hanson appealed that finding, the treatment of evidence, the rejection of her fair-comment defense and the constitutional validity of the law.
The Full Federal Court’s judgment rejected every ground. Justices Melissa Perry, Angus Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett agreed that the post was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Faruqi and relevant groups. They also held that it was published because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin and was not made reasonably and in good faith.
The court upheld section 18C’s constitutional basis and found that it did not impermissibly burden political communication. That does not create a general constitutional right to be free from offensive speech in Australia. It means the particular statutory restriction survived Hanson’s challenge under the implied freedom that protects the operation of representative government.
Hanson said the ruling risked silencing public discussion and indicated that she intended to seek an appeal in the High Court. Faruqi called the decision a victory for people who have been told to return to where they came from. The Australian Greens emphasized its significance for migrant, First Nations and Muslim communities.
Why the ruling matters beyond Australia
International coverage has mostly described the case as a conflict between racial-discrimination law and free speech. That shorthand is understandable, but Australia’s legal framework differs from systems with an explicit constitutional free-speech guarantee. The court considered an implied freedom tied to democratic government, not an unlimited personal right to political expression.
The ruling’s treatment of overlapping identities may prove more consequential. Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman, who assisted the court as a friend of the court, said the judgment clarified how the law can address discrimination directed at a person as a migrant, a person of colour and a Muslim at the same time. An official commission statement described that intersectional analysis as a landmark development.
International reporting also noted the political setting. Hanson’s One Nation party has gained support while campaigning against immigration and multiculturalism. The judgment therefore arrives during a live national argument about Australian identity, not as an isolated historical dispute.
The court did not ban criticism of immigration, monarchy or Faruqi’s comments about empire. Its narrower conclusion was that Hanson’s specific response carried a racial and anti-immigrant message, failed the statutory good-faith protections and could lawfully be restricted under the Racial Discrimination Act.
What to watch
Hanson cannot take the case to the High Court as of right. She must first file a special-leave application and persuade the court that the proposed appeal raises questions warranting its attention. The filing, if made, will show whether she focuses on constitutional power, political communication, the interpretation of section 18C or the court’s treatment of intersecting identities.
Costs also remain unresolved. The Full Federal Court reserved that question and directed parties seeking a costs order to file short submissions within ten business days, with responses due five business days after receipt.
The next concrete milestones are therefore any High Court special-leave application and the Full Federal Court’s subsequent costs order. Unless the High Court agrees to hear the case and later overturns it, the 2024 discrimination finding remains in force.
Sources
- Federal Court of Australia, Australia: full appellate judgment, constitutional analysis and orders, English.
- Federal Court case file, Australia: appeal documents and procedural record, English.
- Australian Greens, Australia: Faruqi and party response, English.
- Australian Human Rights Commission statement, Australia: commissioner’s intersectionality analysis, republished in English.
- Al Jazeera and Reuters, Qatar/United Kingdom: international framing and both senators’ public reactions, English.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and human editorial review. English-language Australian and international sources were checked.