Hanson Takes Racial Discrimination Case to High Court

Australia’s High Court has agreed to hear an appeal by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson against a series of judicial decisions finding that she racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi through a social media post telling her to return to Pakistan. The case is expected to examine the balance between freedom of political expression and legal protections against racial discrimination, potentially carrying significant consequences for public debate and the rights of minority communities in Australia.

Hanson was granted special leave to appeal on Thursday, allowing her legal challenge to proceed to the country’s highest court. The decision follows earlier rulings that found her comments unlawful under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. The full Federal Court unanimously upheld the original judgment in July, maintaining the finding that Hanson’s post constituted racial discrimination.

The High Court will now consider whether the comments breached the Racial Discrimination Act or whether the previous Federal Court decision improperly restricted the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. The central question is how Australian law should balance the right of political figures to express strong opinions with the responsibility to avoid conduct that unlawfully targets people because of their race or ethnic background.

The dispute began in September 2022, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Faruqi, an Australian Greens senator who was born in Pakistan, published a social media post expressing condolences to those who knew the Queen while criticising the British Empire’s colonial history. She referred to the legacy of racism, the taking of land and wealth from colonised communities, and the need for justice and reparations. Her comments also called for a treaty with Australia’s First Nations peoples and renewed discussion about the country’s constitutional future as a republic.

Hanson responded with a strongly worded message directed at Faruqi. She criticised the senator’s attitude towards the late monarch and argued that Faruqi had benefited from living in Australia, including obtaining citizenship, purchasing homes and securing a parliamentary position. Hanson then told her to pack her bags and return to Pakistan.

The exchange quickly became a major political and legal controversy. Faruqi argued that the response went beyond political disagreement and targeted her migrant background, suggesting that she did not belong in Australia despite being an Australian citizen and elected representative. The case subsequently became an important test of how the country’s racial discrimination laws apply to comments made by politicians on social media.

In November 2024, Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart ruled that Hanson’s post was unlawful. He found that the message portrayed Faruqi as a second-class citizen who had benefited from Australia but should remain grateful and silent. According to the judgment, the implication that a migrant should be thankful for living in the country and refrain from criticising it was exclusionary.

Justice Stewart also considered the instruction to return to Pakistan a version of the familiar racist expression telling someone to go back to the place from which they came. He described that type of language as a racist trope and a particularly strong form of racism.

The judge noted that Hanson was a prominent political figure whose public statements could influence the behaviour of others. Because of her profile, the post had the potential to encourage other people to make similar or even more hostile comments towards migrants and minority communities.

Hanson had argued that her response should be considered in the context of Faruqi’s criticism of the monarchy and the British Empire. However, the court rejected the argument that the senator’s original post justified the personal attack. Justice Stewart concluded that Hanson’s message was an angry response directed at Faruqi rather than a legitimate example of fair comment protected by the relevant legal exemption.

The decision was subsequently challenged, but the full Federal Court upheld the original finding unanimously in July 2026. The three judges, Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett, agreed that the earlier judgment should stand. Their decision reinforced the conclusion that political disagreement does not automatically protect statements that breach the country’s racial discrimination legislation.

Hanson’s latest appeal means the dispute will now move to the highest level of Australia’s judicial system. The High Court’s consideration of the implied freedom of political communication could be particularly significant because political expression enjoys constitutional protection in Australia, although that protection is not an unlimited personal right to say anything without legal consequences.

The implied freedom exists to protect communication necessary for the functioning of Australia’s representative and responsible system of government. Courts have previously considered whether laws or government actions place an unjustified burden on political communication. In this case, the High Court will have to consider how that constitutional principle applies when political speech is alleged to violate protections against racial discrimination.

Hanson welcomed the decision to grant special leave, arguing that the case involved broader questions about freedom of expression. In a social media statement, the 72-year-old senator said the dispute had become bigger than her and a single post. She maintained that Australians should be able to speak openly, question government decisions and disagree without fearing that they would be silenced.

She also connected the case to wider debates about online speech and government regulation, referring to concerns over proposed digital duty-of-care legislation. Hanson argued that freedom of expression was under pressure and suggested that legal restrictions could discourage legitimate debate.

Faruqi responded with a firm message of her own, saying: “Bring it on.” She described the legal battle as a long and difficult journey undertaken alongside people who have experienced racism. She said she would not back down and expressed confidence that the High Court could establish a clear position on legal protections against racial discrimination.

The Greens senator emphasised that the outcome would matter beyond the two politicians involved. She argued that people of colour, migrants and Muslims should be able to feel safe and accepted in the country they call home. She also stressed that legal protections were especially important at a time when minority communities could face public hostility and political attacks.

Her response highlighted the wider social significance of the case. For many people who experience racial discrimination, statements suggesting that they do not belong because of their ethnic or national background can reinforce exclusion and undermine their sense of security. The legal dispute has therefore become part of a broader discussion about citizenship, identity, equality and the responsibilities of public figures.

The federal government has also reaffirmed the importance of Australia’s racial discrimination legislation. A spokesperson for Attorney General Michelle Rowland said section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act remained particularly important to social cohesion. The spokesperson declined to comment further because the matter was before the court but reiterated the government’s position that racism and racial hatred have no place in Australian society.

Section 18C has been the subject of political debate for years. It makes certain public acts unlawful when they are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The law also contains exemptions, including provisions relating to matters such as artistic work, academic discussion, scientific research and fair comment on matters of public interest.

The legislation has faced criticism from some political figures who argue that its wording may restrict freedom of expression. Others maintain that it provides an important safeguard against racial hostility and helps protect people from public conduct that can undermine equality and social participation.

The High Court appeal could bring renewed attention to those competing arguments. Its decision may clarify how the Racial Discrimination Act interacts with constitutional protections for political communication, particularly when comments are made by elected representatives during public political disputes.

The case also raises questions about the responsibilities that accompany political influence. Social media has made it possible for politicians to communicate instantly with large audiences, but public statements can also spread hostility and shape how communities view people from different backgrounds. The courts’ assessment of Hanson’s post has already highlighted the potential consequences of language used by prominent political figures.

For Faruqi, the proceedings represent a challenge to what she considers an attack on her dignity and belonging as an Australian citizen. For Hanson, the appeal is an attempt to defend her interpretation of political expression. The High Court will now have the responsibility of considering the legal principles at the centre of their disagreement.

The outcome will be closely watched by political leaders, legal experts, civil rights organisations and communities concerned about racism and freedom of speech. Whatever the final judgment, the case is likely to influence future discussions about the limits of political expression and the protection of minority rights in Australia.