One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has suffered a significant legal setback after the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed her appeal against a landmark ruling that found she breached Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

The decision confirms an earlier judgment that Senator Hanson unlawfully engaged in racial discrimination when she told Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan” during a heated exchange on social media in September 2022.

Monday’s unanimous ruling by the Full Federal Court represents another important chapter in one of Australia’s most closely watched political legal battles, reinforcing the application of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act while reigniting debate over the balance between freedom of political communication and protection against racial abuse.

The case originated in the hours following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

On the day the monarch’s passing was announced, Senator Faruqi published a social media post expressing sympathy for those mourning the Queen while also criticising the legacy of the British Empire.

She wrote that although she extended her condolences to grieving Australians, she could not mourn “the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised people.”

The comments immediately generated widespread political debate across Australia.

Some defended Senator Faruqi’s right to criticise Britain’s colonial history, while others viewed the timing of the remarks as inappropriate during a period of national mourning.

Among the strongest critics was Pauline Hanson.

Responding publicly, the One Nation leader accused Senator Faruqi of benefiting from Australia after immigrating to the country, noting that she had obtained Australian citizenship, purchased homes and secured a position in the Federal Parliament.

Senator Hanson concluded her response with the words: “It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan.”

The exchange quickly spread across social media and became one of the most controversial political moments of 2022.

Rather than ending as an online dispute, however, the matter soon entered the Federal Court.

Senator Faruqi commenced legal proceedings alleging that the statement contravened Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, arguing it targeted her because of her race, colour and national or ethnic origin.

She also argued that telling a migrant or Australian of non-European heritage to “go back” to another country echoed a long-standing racist stereotype that had historically been used to question the legitimacy of minorities living in Australia.

Following extensive hearings, Justice Angus Stewart ruled in November 2024 that Senator Hanson had breached the legislation.

The court concluded that race and ethnic origin were substantial reasons for the publication of the post and that the comments were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate because of those protected characteristics.

Justice Stewart rejected arguments that the statement was merely robust political criticism, finding that it crossed the legal threshold established by Australia’s anti-discrimination laws.

Only weeks after that judgment, Senator Hanson lodged an appeal with the Full Federal Court.

Her legal team argued that the original decision incorrectly interpreted the legislation and gave insufficient consideration to Australia’s constitutional protection of political communication.

The appeal was heard over three days before a Full Court comprising Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett.

On Monday, the three judges unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in Justice Stewart’s reasoning.

In a detailed judgment, the court held that offensive remarks directed at one individual because of race may also perpetuate harmful stereotypes affecting others who share the same racial or ethnic background.

The judges concluded that Senator Hanson’s attempt to distinguish between criticism of Senator Faruqi personally and comments based upon her ethnic origin could not succeed.

According to the judgment, one of the reasons for publishing the social media post was Senator Faruqi’s race, colour and national or ethnic origin, bringing the conduct within the scope of Section 18C.

The Full Court also rejected constitutional arguments advanced during the appeal.

The judges acknowledged that Australia’s system of representative democracy requires broad protection for political communication, including vigorous criticism and robust public debate.

However, they concluded that such protection does not automatically invalidate legislation enacted to prohibit racial discrimination.

The ruling therefore reinforces earlier judicial authority recognising that freedom of political communication and anti-discrimination protections are capable of operating together within Australia’s constitutional framework.

Outside court, Senator Faruqi described the unanimous decision as a victory extending beyond her personal circumstances.

Speaking to reporters after the judgment, she said the ruling represented justice for Australians who had experienced racism or been told they did not belong because of their cultural or ethnic background.

“Today’s win is for every single person out there who has been told to go back to where you came from,” Senator Faruqi said.

She argued that hate speech was becoming increasingly normalised in Australia and stressed that democratic societies must distinguish between free speech and racial abuse.

Senator Faruqi also made clear she would continue challenging racist behaviour in politics and public life, regardless of whether Senator Hanson sought to continue the legal proceedings.

Responding to the outcome, Pauline Hanson said she was disappointed by the Full Federal Court’s decision but indicated the legal battle may not yet be over.

In a statement released shortly after the judgment, the One Nation leader confirmed that she and her legal advisers would carefully examine the court’s reasons before deciding whether to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

“My legal team and I will now closely review the decision in the coming days, with a view to commencing an appeal in the High Court of Australia,” Senator Hanson said.

She also used the opportunity to renew her long-standing criticism of Australia’s anti-discrimination laws, arguing they have increasingly limited open public discussion on controversial political issues.

According to Senator Hanson, many Australians now fear expressing personal opinions because of the possibility that others may consider their comments offensive or distressing.

Her comments reflect a debate that has continued for years within Australian politics over whether Section 18C strikes the appropriate balance between protecting individuals from racial discrimination and safeguarding freedom of expression.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful to publicly engage in conduct that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

Supporters of the provision argue it provides an essential safeguard against racial vilification and helps maintain Australia’s multicultural society by discouraging conduct that marginalises minority communities.

Critics, however, contend that the wording gives insufficient protection to political speech and risks discouraging robust public debate on matters of national importance.

The provision has repeatedly become the subject of parliamentary discussion over the past decade.

Successive Coalition governments considered amendments that would have narrowed the scope of Section 18C or altered its wording to provide greater emphasis on freedom of speech. Those proposals were ultimately abandoned following opposition from legal experts, community organisations and crossbench parliamentarians.

As a result, the legislation remains substantially unchanged and continues to serve as the legal foundation for cases involving allegations of racial discrimination in public communication.

The Full Federal Court’s latest decision also provides important clarification regarding how Australian courts interpret conduct directed at a single individual.

The judges rejected the argument that a statement aimed at one person cannot also have broader implications for members of the same racial or ethnic community.

Instead, the court concluded that comments drawing upon racial stereotypes may reinforce prejudice extending beyond the immediate recipient of the remarks.

Legal observers say that aspect of the judgment could prove influential in future racial discrimination cases involving politicians, media personalities and public figures.

The decision further confirms that constitutional protection for political communication is not absolute.

Australia’s Constitution contains an implied freedom of political communication that protects public discussion necessary for representative government.

However, the High Court has consistently recognised that Parliament may enact laws pursuing legitimate public objectives, including laws addressing racial discrimination, provided they do not impose an unjustified burden on political communication.

The Full Federal Court concluded that the Racial Discrimination Act falls within that constitutional framework.

For Senator Faruqi, the outcome represents not only a personal legal victory but also what she describes as a broader affirmation that Australians should not have their place in society questioned because of their race or ethnic background.

Throughout the litigation, she maintained that telling migrants or Australians from minority communities to “go back” to another country carries a long history of racial exclusion and cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary political disagreement.

The case has attracted national attention because it involves two prominent federal senators whose political philosophies frequently collide on issues including immigration, multiculturalism, national identity and Australia’s constitutional future.

Those broader political disagreements formed the backdrop to the original exchange following Queen Elizabeth II’s death, but the Federal Court’s task was not to evaluate the competing political opinions expressed by either senator.

Instead, the court focused on whether the language used in Senator Hanson’s response contravened Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation.

By unanimously dismissing the appeal, the Full Court confirmed that the original trial judge had correctly applied the law to the facts of the case.

Whether the matter proceeds further now depends on Senator Hanson’s decision regarding the High Court.

Unlike appeals to the Full Federal Court, litigants do not have an automatic right to have cases heard by Australia’s highest court.

Instead, parties must first obtain special leave to appeal, a process reserved for matters raising questions of legal principle or issues of national significance.

Only a relatively small percentage of applications receive that approval each year.

If special leave is refused, Monday’s unanimous judgment will stand as the final judicial determination of the dispute.

If the High Court agrees to hear the matter, the case could once again place Section 18C and the constitutional limits of political speech under intense national scrutiny.

Regardless of any future appeal, the litigation has already become one of the most significant legal disputes involving racial discrimination and political communication in recent Australian history.

It highlights the legal responsibilities accompanying public statements made by elected representatives while illustrating the continuing tension between freedom of political expression and statutory protections against racial discrimination.

The parties are expected to return to court at a later date for proceedings relating to legal costs, bringing another stage to a case that has remained in the public spotlight since the original social media exchange almost four years ago.