High Court to Hear Pauline Hanson’s Appeal Over Racial Discrimination Ruling

The High Court of Australia has granted One Nation leader Pauline Hanson special leave to appeal a Federal Court ruling that found she engaged in racial discrimination against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi. The decision sets the stage for a judicial review of how the Racial Discrimination Act interacts with political speech.

The 2022 origins of the legal dispute

The conflict began in September 2022 following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Senator Faruqi posted on social media that she could not mourn the leader of a “racist empire” and called for reparations and a republic. She added, “We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.” Senator Hanson responded by telling Faruqi, who immigrated to Australia, to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan.” Hanson also wrote, “Your attitude appalls and disgusts me.”

In November 2024, Justice Angus Stewart of the Federal Court ruled that the post was unlawful, describing the language as a “variant of the slogan ‘go back to from where you came from’” and ordered the tweet to be deleted. Justice Stewart characterized the post as a “racist trope” and a “strong form of racism” that portrayed Senator Faruqi as a “second-class citizen” who “should be grateful for what she has and keep quiet.” He further noted that the 72-year-old senator’s profile likely “empowered others” to make similar comments. A full bench of the Federal Court unanimously upheld that decision in July this year, dismissing all seven grounds of Hanson’s appeal.

Hanson challenges racial discrimination act limits

Hanson’s appeal to the High Court centers on whether the Racial Discrimination Act—specifically section 18C, which prohibits speech that offends, insults, humiliates, or intimidates—unconstitutionally restricts the implied freedom of political communication. Hanson stated on social media that the case is “bigger than one tweet” and argued that Australians must be able to “question their government and disagree with each other without being frightened into silence.” She also suggested that such freedom is currently “under attack,” citing Labor’s digital duty of care bill.

Legal experts observe that the High Court’s involvement creates a tension between statutory protections against vilification and the constitutional protection of political discourse. The court has previously been divided on whether the purpose of the legislation is a legitimate limit on speech. The High Court is expected to test the validity of the law in the context of a dispute between two sitting Commonwealth senators.

Faruqi welcomes high court appeal decision

Senator Faruqi responded to the High Court’s decision to hear the appeal with the statement, “Bring it on.” She maintained that the legal system must provide protection against vilification, stating that people of color, migrants, and Muslims “deserve to feel safe in the place they call home.” We won’t be backing down now.”

A spokesperson for the federal attorney general, Michelle Rowland, declined to comment on the specifics of the case because the matter is before the court.

High court to test speech and discrimination laws

The upcoming hearing will serve as a litmus test for the judiciary’s stance on the balance between protected speech and racial discrimination laws. A win for Senator Hanson would allow her to argue that the law is invalid, while a loss would confirm the judiciary’s stance on the limits of expression.

The High Court has not yet set a date for the final hearing.