The One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, has been accused of lying under oath in the federal court after denying that she knew, until recently, that the Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi was a Muslim.
Hanson spent Tuesday afternoon in the witness box of the federal court where she was questioned by Faruqi’s counsel, Saul Holt KC, about her views and previous statements on immigration, Muslims and migrants.
Holt presented Hanson with a range of statements the One Nation senator had previously made in regards to Muslims, including likening Islam to a “disease” which Australia needed to be vaccinated against in 2017 and her claim it was impossible to tell a “good Muslim from a bad Muslim”.
Hanson said she did not recall making most of the statements, leading to the court being shown footage of several TV interviews, ranging from the late 1990s to this year.
Hanson denied that she had previously advocated for a full ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, saying it was not One Nation policy, as it was not in the party’s “policy booklet”.
She told the court it may be a “personal opinion” but she meant it in regards to fundamentalist Muslims and those who believed extremist ideology. Asked if she believed what she said in a 2010 interview about not ever wanting to sell her house to a Muslim, as she did not believe Muslims to be “compatible with our way of life”, Hanson said “probably not”.
She was unable to say if several views she had expressed in the past regarding Muslims, including whether it was possible to tell a “good Muslim from a bad Muslim”, were still her beliefs, answering “I don’t know”.
Hanson was also unable to say whether she still believed Muslims were “infiltrating” government positions as she had previously claimed, and denied knowing, until after the “piss off back to Pakistan tweet”, that Faruqi was Muslim.
Under questioning from Holt, Hanson said that she did not know that 97% of the Pakistani population was Muslim, and she never suspected Faruqi was Muslim.
Holt pushed Hanson on why that information was not included in the sworn affidavit Hanson provided to the court, and Hanson said that, while she knew now, “at the time I did the tweet it was irrelevant”.
Hanson said it was “irrelevant to me whether she was a Muslim or not”.
Holt said Hanson knew what was being alleged was in terms of a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and that part of Faruqi’s claim was that it was because she was a Muslim.
“So if it is true you didn’t know she was a Muslim, why on earth would you not have said that in the affidavit,” Holt asked.
“It never crossed my mind,” Hanson said.
“It’s a lie Senator Hanson, I am going to suggest, quite straight forwardly, a lie,” Holt said in response.
Hanson denied she was lying.
“When I put the tweet out, I wasn’t aware of her religious background … I don’t ask people their religious beliefs.”
Hanson said she had not noticed Faruqi wear Muslim garb, adding “I’ve never seen her wear a burqa or a hijab”.
Hanson said she was a “paper girl” and did not have access to X, formerly Twitter, on her phone or computer and her account was run by a member of her staff. She said it was her staff who alerted her to Faruqi’s tweet as she did not see it herself, and that was the only tweet she was told about.
She said she dictated an answer while “angry, upset and distraught” at Faruqi’s critique of colonisation on the day Queen Elizabeth II died and “couldn’t understand why she had that feeling”.
Hanson is defending a racial discrimination action Faruqi brought against her, after Hanson told Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan” on social media, in response to Faruqi’s criticism of colonisation on the day the queen died.
Faruqi said she had been subjected to a barrage of racial abuse after the Hanson tweet and had been racially vilified under the Racial Discrimination Act. She is seeking an apology, for Hanson to undergo anti-racism training at her own expense and a $150,000 donation to the Sweatshop Literacy Movement as damages.
Hanson has denied Faruqi’s claims, while contending section 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act impedes the implied constitutional right of freedom of speech.
Originally set down for a five-day hearing, final arguments will now begin on Wednesday.
