“SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS”: Pauline Hanson unleashes a bombshell statement, declaring: “Australia would be better off if all illegal boat arrivals and certain migrants were deported – and Fatima Payman should be the first!”

In a fiery speech that’s rocked Parliament and the nation, the One Nation leader slammed the Afghan-born senator, branding her a “real threat to Australian values and our way of life.”

“We’ve welcomed people with open arms and a fair go,” Hanson emphasized, “but in return, we get contempt for our laws, our mateship, and our culture from some who don’t share our values. It’s time to defend the silent majority who are fed up!”

The phrase “starting with Fatima Payman” has sparked massive outrage: critics slam it as racist and divisive, while supporters hail it as “the brutal truth everyone’s thinking but too scared to say.”

The explosive remarks came during a heated Senate session amid escalating tensions over immigration, where Hanson has long positioned herself as the voice of frustrated Australians.

Sources close to One Nation describe the speech as a direct escalation in her ongoing feud with Senator Fatima Payman, the independent senator from Western Australia who defected from Labor in 2024 over disagreements on foreign policy, particularly regarding Palestine and Gaza.

Payman, born in Kabul, Afghanistan, and arriving in Australia as a child refugee, has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to her vocal advocacy for multiculturalism, refugee rights, and her hijab-wearing presence in Parliament – elements that Hanson and her supporters argue clash with traditional Australian identity.

Hanson’s call for deportation of “illegal boat arrivals and certain migrants” aligns closely with One Nation’s longstanding platform. The party advocates capping annual migration at 130,000 (a sharp cut from recent highs), immediate deportation of over 75,000 visa overstayers or illegal entrants, an eight-year probationary period for citizenship, and strict values-testing for newcomers.

In recent months, as polls show One Nation surging to 20-27% primary vote in various surveys (including Newspoll and Redbridge), Hanson has intensified her rhetoric, linking high migration levels to housing shortages, cost-of-living pressures, crime, and cultural erosion.

She frequently references post-pandemic migration surges, claiming they have overwhelmed infrastructure and diluted “Australian values” like mateship and fair go.

The targeting of Payman specifically echoes Hanson’s recent actions. In late 2025 and early 2026, Hanson petitioned Parliament to investigate Payman’s eligibility under Section 44 of the Constitution, alleging the senator retains dual Afghan citizenship despite pathways to renounce it.

This bid, though ultimately rejected, fueled a bitter exchange where Payman retorted that if Hanson dislikes Australia’s multicultural direction, she should “pack her bags and go to the US” to align with figures like Donald Trump.

Hanson fired back defiantly: “I love it when someone like Fatima Payman tells me I should leave the country if I don’t like the direction Australia is heading,” while reiterating calls for deporting those incompatible with Western society.

Critics, including human rights groups, Labor figures, and multicultural advocates, condemned Hanson’s statement as inflammatory and xenophobic. The Australian Human Rights Commission highlighted how such language risks inciting division in an already tense climate, where immigration debates have intensified following events like the Bondi Beach incident and ongoing offshore processing controversies.

Payman’s office issued a swift response, calling the comments “predictable bigotry from a politician desperate to stay relevant,” and emphasizing Australia’s proud history as a nation built by migrants. “This is not about defending values – it’s about fear-mongering and targeting vulnerable communities,” a spokesperson said.

Supporters, however, flooded social media with praise. On platforms like X and Facebook, hashtags such as #StandWithPauline and #DeportNow trended, with users arguing that Hanson’s words reflect widespread frustration. Polls indicate that a majority of Australians (often over 60% in recent scans) believe migration levels are too high, linking it to economic strain.

One Nation’s surge – from 6.4% in the 2025 federal election to double digits now – is attributed to this sentiment, with the party drawing votes from disaffected Coalition and even some Labor supporters in regional and outer-suburban areas.

The broader context of Australia’s immigration policy in 2026 remains contentious. The Labor government under Anthony Albanese has maintained strict border controls, including boat turnbacks since 2013 (with very few arrivals in recent years), offshore processing on Nauru, and expansions of deportation arrangements.

A leaked Liberal plan proposed temporary bans from high-risk countries like Gaza, Somalia, and Afghanistan, citing security and values compatibility – ideas Hanson has long championed. Human Rights Watch’s 2026 report criticized these as “abusive,” arguing they erode refugee protections and international obligations.

Hanson’s speech has reignited debates on assimilation versus multiculturalism. She has repeatedly stated that migrants who “don’t want to assimilate” or show “contempt” for Australian culture should face deportation, a view she ties to fiscal impacts and social cohesion.

In Senate addresses, she has pushed for stripping citizenship from those breaching laws and deporting them swiftly, without lengthy appeals.

The fallout could influence upcoming elections, including state polls where One Nation eyes gains. Political analysts note that while Hanson’s style polarizes, her consistency on immigration resonates in a time of economic anxiety.

“She’s tapping into real grievances,” one commentator observed, “but at the risk of deepening societal rifts.”

As Parliament digests the fallout, calls for cross-party dialogue on migration grow louder. Yet with One Nation’s polling momentum, Hanson’s “bombshell” may signal a shift toward harder-line policies in mainstream discourse. Australia watches closely: is this the voice of the silent majority, or a dangerous escalation in divisive politics?