TLDR
Three Federal Court judges have dismissed Pauline Hanson's appeal, leaving intact the finding that her 2022 tweet telling Senator Mehreen Faruqi to 'piss off back to Pakistan' breached the Racial Discrimination Act. The original orders stand: the tweet must be deleted and Hanson must pay Faruqi's legal costs, with the Full Court reserving the costs of the appeal itself. The court affirmed the tweet conveyed nativism, hatred of migrants and anti-Muslim sentiment, and rejected the argument that 'intimidate' in section 18C requires a physical threat. One Nation's current polling surge sharpens the political stakes around racial vilification law.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Appeal dismissed, orders stand
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed Pauline Hanson's appeal in NSD 1698 of 2024 on 27 July 2026, reserving costs and leaving the primary judge's orders fully intact.verifiedVerified Source: judgments.fedcourt.gov.au[1] Three judges upheld every element of the November 2024 finding against the One Nation leader.
The orders Stewart J handed down in the primary judgment remain in force. Hanson must delete the tweet and pay Senator Mehreen Faruqi's legal costs under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act,[2] with the Full Court reserving the costs of the appeal itself for separate determination.
What the tweet said and why it was unlawful
Hanson posted the tweet on 9 September 2022, telling Faruqi, a Greens senator and the party's deputy leader, to "piss off back to Pakistan".[2] Faruqi's originating application (NSD 372 of 2023) alleged the conduct was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate her and groups of people, and was done because of race.
Stewart J declared in the primary judgment: "The conduct of the respondent in publishing a tweet ... telling the applicant to 'piss off back to Pakistan' ... is unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)."[2] Section 18C prohibits acts reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of race; section 18D provides exemptions for fair comment made reasonably and in good faith on matters of public interest.
How the Full Court characterised the conduct
The Full Court affirmed that the primary judge had correctly held the tweet to be seriously offensive, conveying messages of nativism, hatred of migrants and anti-Muslim sentiment, and that it was not published reasonably and in good faith.verifiedVerified Source: judgments.fedcourt.gov.au[1] That finding closed off the section 18D exemption Hanson's legal team had sought to invoke.
The tweet was found to be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate a reasonable member of the identified groups.[1] All four elements of the section 18C test were satisfied.
Hanson's argument and why it failed
Hanson's senior counsel, S. Chrysanthou SC, submitted in written submissions filed on 12 December 2025 that the word "intimidate" in section 18C should be read narrowly.[3] Chrysanthou SC told the court: "A provision prohibiting only conduct reasonably likely to 'intimidate', in the sense of putting someone in fear for their safety, especially by threats or violence, appears to be quite a different law to the one that, even according to the Commonwealth's submissions, the Commonwealth sought to enact."[3]
The submission's core logic was that a tweet, however unpleasant, could not constitute intimidation without a threat directed at physical safety. The Full Court rejected that reading, upholding the primary judge's broader construction of section 18C and dismissing the appeal in its entirety.verifiedVerified Source: judgments.fedcourt.gov.au[1] Refusing to confine "intimidate" to physical threats widens the effective reach of the provision.
Senators respond, High Court looms
Faruqi was elected to the Senate in 2018 and brought the original complaint under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act before filing the Federal Court application in 2023.[2] The Full Court's decision is the second consecutive judicial rejection of Hanson's position.
Hanson had not confirmed any High Court application at the time the verdict was delivered. A special leave application to the High Court of Australia remains the only avenue left to challenge the orders requiring deletion of the tweet and payment of Faruqi's costs.
Political context: One Nation polling surge
One Nation has recorded a surge in federal voting-intention polling, lifting the party's profile heading into the broader debate over section 18C and racial vilification law.[1] Critics of the provision have long argued it chills political speech; supporters say the Full Court's decision confirms the law operates as parliament intended.
Hanson has a documented record of provocative anti-immigration statements spanning decades in public life. The Full Court's judgment in NSD 1698 of 2024, handed down on 27 July 2026, is now the leading appellate authority on the scope of section 18C as it applies to social media posts directed at a named individual.
SOURCES & CITATIONS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What did the Full Court decide?
What orders does Hanson now face?
Why did the court reject Hanson's argument?
Can Hanson take the matter further?
What is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?
Margaret Hale covers breaking news and sport for Bushletter. Fast and verb-led, he writes with a news-wire cadence and no patience for PR spin.
