In a dramatic showdown that has sent shockwaves through Australian politics, One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson has decisively challenged Independent Senator Fatima Payman’s eligibility to sit in the Senate, igniting a fierce debate over citizenship, constitutional integrity, and alleged hypocrisy within progressive parties. The confrontation, which unfolded in the Senate chamber, saw Hanson demand full transparency on Payman’s dual citizenship status under Section 44 of the Australian Constitution, while accusing the Greens of shielding her through selective outrage.
The episode escalated into chaos, with accusations of racism flying, dramatic walkouts, and Hanson delivering a pointed statement that exposed what she called blatant double standards, leaving the political landscape in turmoil.
The roots of this controversy trace back to Senator Fatima Payman’s background. Born in Afghanistan in 1995, Payman arrived in Australia as a child refugee in 2003 and was naturalized as an Australian citizen in 2005. However, Afghan law does not automatically revoke citizenship upon acquiring another nationality, creating a de jure dual citizenship situation. When Payman successfully ran for the Senate in the 2022 federal election as a Labor candidate, she declared in her register of qualifications that she had taken “all reasonable steps” to renounce her Afghan citizenship.
She cited the impossibility of completing the process due to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, which disrupted diplomatic and administrative channels. Legal advice at the time, including from senior counsel obtained by the Labor Party, supported her eligibility, affirming that she had met the constitutional requirement of making reasonable efforts under precedents like the High Court’s Sykes v Cleary ruling.
Section 44 of the Constitution disqualifies individuals who are subjects or citizens of a foreign power from sitting in federal parliament. This provision has historically caused multiple MPs and senators to be ousted, most notably during the 2017-2018 “citizenship seven” crisis that saw politicians from various parties removed for unknowingly holding dual nationality. Payman’s case, however, is distinct because of the practical barriers posed by Afghanistan’s instability. Constitutional experts have described renunciation as “near impossible” in such circumstances, and Payman has maintained that she is not in breach, as she has done everything feasible.
Enter Pauline Hanson. In late 2024, the One Nation leader repeatedly raised concerns about Payman’s status, particularly after Payman resigned from the Labor Party in July 2024 over disagreements on the Gaza conflict and Palestine recognition, moving to the crossbench as an independent and later announcing plans for her own political party, Australia’s Voice. Hanson wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling for a transparent examination of Payman’s citizenship, arguing that her recent political moves made swift resolution essential ahead of potential elections.
The flashpoint came in a tense Senate session when Hanson attempted to table documents and move a motion referring Payman to a committee for investigation into her eligibility under Section 44. She insisted on full disclosure of correspondence and evidence, declaring, “Don’t exploit loopholes or political protections to hide potential illegality in citizenship. Every senator must comply with the law equally, without favoritism or bias toward anyone.” Hanson pressed the Senate President to allow the tabling, framing her demand as a matter of accountability rather than personal attack.
The response was immediate and explosive. Critics, including Greens senators and Payman herself, branded Hanson’s actions as racist and a “witch hunt.” Payman rose in the chamber to condemn Hanson as “vindictive, mean, nasty,” and a “disgrace to the human race,” accusing her of targeting someone who “does not look like you.” The remarks were later withdrawn after objection, but not before Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe dramatically tore up documents, threw papers at Hanson, and stormed out while making an obscene gesture, further fueling the chaos.
Hanson, undeterred, hit back forcefully. She exposed what she described as “double standards” and “hypocrisy,” pointing out that the same parties quick to cry racism were allegedly protecting Payman while ordinary Australians would face disqualification without such leniency. In a direct statement targeting both Payman and the Greens, Hanson declared: “This isn’t about race—it’s about the rule of law. If everyday citizens tried to dodge citizenship rules, they’d be punished. Yet here we see a protection racket for political convenience. The Greens panic because the truth threatens their narrative of selective virtue. Australians deserve equal justice, not elite exemptions.
I will not back down until full transparency prevails.”
The Greens’ reaction was swift and intense, with members expressing outrage over what they saw as a veiled attack on Payman’s heritage and refugee story. Some accused Hanson of stoking division for political gain, while others defended Payman’s position as a legitimate response to an impossible bureaucratic hurdle. The chamber descended into disarray, with raised voices and procedural wrangling highlighting the deep fractures in Australian politics over identity, migration, and constitutional adherence.
Hanson’s persistence paid off in the sense that the issue gained widespread attention, amplifying calls from some quarters for clearer guidelines on dual citizenship in exceptional cases like war-torn nations. Public opinion, as reflected in online discussions and polls circulated by supporters, showed significant support for scrutiny, with claims that a majority of Australians favored stricter enforcement. However, mainstream media and legal analysts largely sided with Payman, noting that her case aligns with established interpretations allowing “reasonable steps” rather than absolute renunciation when impossible.
The fallout has been profound. Payman’s eligibility remains intact, as Hanson’s motion failed to garner sufficient support—only Hanson, her colleague Malcolm Roberts, and a few others voted in favor, while Labor, the Coalition, Greens, and most crossbenchers opposed it. Yet the episode has damaged cross-party relations and reignited debates about Section 44’s rigidity in a multicultural society. For Hanson, it reinforces her image as a fearless outsider challenging perceived elite hypocrisy. For the Greens and broader left, it serves as a warning against what they view as dog-whistle politics.
This clash underscores broader tensions in Australian democracy: the balance between constitutional purity and practical compassion for refugees; the line between legitimate scrutiny and racial targeting; and the role of transparency in an era of polarized politics. As Payman continues her independent path and Hanson vows to press on, the citizenship controversy has exposed raw nerves in the nation’s political fabric, leaving observers to wonder whether true accountability or partisan theater will ultimately prevail.
