The Origin Of The Dispute
The legal conflict originated in September 2022, shortly following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
In response, Senator Pauline Hanson wrote that Faruqi’s attitude appalled and disgusted her. She subsequently directed the senator to pack her bags and return to Pakistan. The statement explicitly cited Faruqi’s immigration history, noting she had taken Australian citizenship, purchased multiple homes, and secured a job in parliament before issuing the directive.
The Original Court Finding
In 2024, Justice Angus Stewart issued a ruling determining that the language used was unlawful. He ordered Hanson to remove the post and pay Faruqi’s legal costs from the initial case. The court concluded that the remark was not merely an aggressive political response but conduct connected to Faruqi’s race, colour or national origin.
The judgment found the comment breached section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act. It determined the statement was seriously offensive and racist, crossing the legal boundary from permissible political criticism into unlawful discrimination.
The Appeal Decision
Hanson challenged this finding by appealing to the Full Federal Court. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett rejected her challenge. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the original finding stands legally effective.
The judges upheld the lower court’s determination that applying section 18C to this specific speech did not place an unconstitutional burden on the implied freedom of political communication. Consequently, the law and the original ruling remain intact.
Civil Case Versus Criminal Conviction
It is essential to distinguish the nature of this proceeding from a criminal prosecution. This was a civil racial-discrimination case, meaning Hanson has not been convicted of a criminal offence.
However, the court confirmed that language used by a serving Australian citizen can cross the legal boundary from political criticism into unlawful discrimination. The decision establishes that holding elected office does not place a serving senator above laws intended to protect people from racial discrimination.
The Status Of Legal Costs
While Justice Stewart ordered Hanson to pay Faruqi’s initial costs, the Full Federal Court has reserved its decision on the costs of the appeal.
Until final orders are released by the registry, no precise new costs amount has been imposed on either party regarding the appellate stage.
Future Legal Steps
She cannot simply launch another appeal as an automatic right under the current system.
Unless special leave is granted and the decision is eventually overturned, the Federal Court’s finding remains in force.
Freedom Of Speech Considerations
Hanson and her supporters have framed the decision as a threat to freedom of speech. Hanson stated after the verdict that Australians should have the courage and freedom to express views on important issues even when others find those views offensive.
However, freedom of speech in Australia is not unlimited. The implied freedom of political communication is not a personal licence allowing every statement made during political debate.
There is also a clear difference between criticising Faruqi’s views and telling her to return to Pakistan.
Instead, her response suggested that because Faruqi migrated to Australia, she was less entitled to criticise its institutions. That is precisely why many people regard go back language as racist. It treats people with migrant backgrounds as permanent outsiders whose right to belong depends on silence or gratitude.
The court’s decision rejects the idea that every racially charged statement becomes protected simply because it is made by a politician during a public argument. The case also demonstrates that powerful public figures can be held accountable when their words breach the law.
Faruqi described the ruling as a victory against racism and argued that hate speech should not be treated as free speech. The Greens stated the judgment sent a message that racial vilification by people with large platforms has legal consequences.
The decision stands pending any further High Court intervention, leaving the central question for Australians to consider: where politicians are free to criticise ideas but cannot use someone’s racial or national background to suggest that person does not belong in Australia.