Tony Abbott backs Pauline Hanson’s High Court racial vilification bid

Tony Abbott, president of the Liberal Party, has publicly endorsed Pauline Hanson's High Court bid to challenge a federal court ruling that found her remarks towards Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi constituted racial vilification under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The move comes after the Federal Court ruled in June that Hanson’s comment, telling Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan”, breached the law. Hanson, leader of the far-right One Nation party, announced her intention to seek leave to appeal the decision to the High Court, arguing that the current framework of hate speech legislation poses a threat to free expression. Hanson’s legal challenge is framed as a broader fight for the right of ordinary citizens to engage in political discourse without fear of being silenced or subjected to legal consequences. Her party has spent over $800,000 on legal costs in the past four years, underscoring the financial and political stakes involved. In a statement, Hanson emphasized that the case is not about granting politicians special privileges but rather about ensuring that all Australians can participate in shaping their nation’s future without intimidation. Abbott, who took office as Liberal Party president in May, has aligned himself with Hanson’s stance on free speech, positioning the party firmly on the conservative end of the ideological spectrum. During a press conference in Toowoomba, he stated that “section 18C, as it is currently constituted, is a risk to free speech, as we’re seeing.” This marks a renewed push by Abbott to dismantle or reform the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that criminalize offensive or discriminatory speech. His comments echo a longstanding campaign he has pursued since becoming prime minister in 2013, though he ultimately abandoned the effort in 2014 due to widespread public backlash and concerns from minority communities. The controversy surrounding section 18C has deep roots in Australian political history. When Abbott attempted to repeal parts of the law in 2014, the proposal faced fierce criticism from Muslim and Jewish advocacy groups, who warned that it could lead to increased discrimination and marginalization. Public opinion polls at the time showed broad disapproval, with many Australians fearing that weakening the law would embolden hate speech and prejudice. Abbott later conceded that the move had damaged interfaith relations and opted to abandon the initiative, citing the need to preserve national unity. Recent developments have reignited the debate. Following the Bondi Beach attack in late 2025, a targeted assault on a Jewish family, the Coalition found itself divided over how to balance stronger protections for vulnerable communities with the risks of overreach in anti-vilification laws. While Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has expressed skepticism about expanding hate speech regulations, he has defended the existing legal framework, stating that it has evolved through years of judicial interpretation and does not allow for “a low threshold” of offense. Burke challenged the Liberal Party to clarify which aspects of speech it believes should be exempt from regulation, suggesting that the discussion around free speech often lacks specificity. “If the Liberal Party thinks there should be more racist things that they’re allowed to say, tell us what they are,” he remarked during a parliamentary session in Canberra. His comments reflect growing frustration among government officials and civil society groups over what they see as a lack of clarity and direction in the ongoing debate. Meanwhile, constitutional law experts such as Anne Twomey have suggested that Hanson’s case may have merit in the High Court, particularly given the evolving nature of free speech jurisprudence in Australia. However, the outcome of the appeal remains uncertain, and the legal battle is likely to continue for months, drawing further attention to the tensions between individual liberty and societal harmony in the context of modern democratic governance.