If Parliament Were a Workplace: The Hanson Case Under Australian Workplace Laws

Run the facts of the Hanson ruling through the workplace laws that govern every Australian business, and the story turns into a compliance lesson no employer can afford to skip.

On 27 July 2026, the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed Senator Pauline Hanson’s appeal against the finding that her 2022 social media post to Senator Mehreen Faruqi breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The post told a colleague to return to Pakistan. The courts have now twice found it was seriously offensive, racially motivated, and not protected as fair comment.

Parliament is an unusual workplace. Its members answer to voters, and parliamentary privilege shields much of what happens inside the chamber. But strip that away and run the same sequence of events through the workplace laws that apply to every Australian business, and the file looks very familiar. A public post directed at a colleague. An external complaint upheld. Earlier conduct that went unaddressed. A formal sanction arriving years later.

Under ordinary workplace laws, the outcome would almost certainly have been faster and harsher. A worker who publicly told a colleague to go back to her country of origin could face dismissal for serious misconduct. Their employer could be vicariously liable under section 18E of the same Act unless it proved it took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct. The Fair Work Commission has upheld dismissals for out-of-hours social media posts since at least 2011.

The most confronting part for employers is not the post itself. It is the timeline. In 2017, Senator Hanson wore a burqa into the Senate as a stunt and faced no penalty. In November 2025, she repeated it and was censured 55 votes to 5 and suspended for seven sitting days. In business, an eight-year gap between identical conduct and its first consequence has a name. It is called condonation, and it is one of the most reliable ways employers lose unfair dismissal cases and discrimination claims.

That is the real lesson of this case for business owners. Workplace laws do not only punish bad conduct. They punish inconsistent responses to it. For a trades business running crews across multiple sites, the message is direct: your code of conduct, your training records and your consistent enforcement are the difference between a defensible position and an expensive one. Australian workplace laws give you the framework. This article shows how the Hanson case maps onto it.

The short version: translated into an ordinary workplace, the Hanson case is a serious misconduct matter, a vicarious liability exposure and a condonation problem rolled into one. Workplace laws would have dealt with it in months, not years. Make sure your business could say the same.

Digging Deeper

The case, reframed as a personnel file

Set the politics aside and read the record as an HR manager would. In September 2022, one colleague publicly criticised an institution. Another colleague replied, in public, by telling her to pack her bags and return to Pakistan. An external complaint followed. In November 2024, an independent decision maker found the conduct was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate the complainant and others sharing her race, colour and migrant background. The decision maker also found the respondent had a documented tendency toward similar conduct and was an unreliable witness. An appeal was lodged. In July 2026, the appeal failed on every ground.

Every element of that file has a direct equivalent under Australian workplace laws: the complaint, the investigation, the credibility findings, the prior history, the sanction and the appeal. The difference is speed and consequence. What took parliament and the courts almost four years would move through most workplaces in weeks, because workplace laws impose obligations that parliament, until recently, did not impose on itself.

The post under workplace laws

Three legal frameworks would engage immediately if this conduct occurred between two employees of an Australian business.

First, discrimination law. Section 18C applies to public acts wherever they occur, and workplace-specific protections in the Racial Discrimination Act, the Fair Work Act and state legislation such as Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act sit alongside it. Racial abuse of a colleague is unlawful whether it happens in the lunchroom, on site or online.

Second, vicarious liability. Under section 18E, an employer is treated as having done the act itself when an employee acts in connection with their duties, unless the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Courts assess reasonable steps against the size and nature of the business. Still, the accepted core is consistent: written policies, real training, a working complaints process and enforcement that actually happens.

Third, employment law. Serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal includes conduct causing serious and imminent risk to the reputation of the business. A public racist post aimed at a colleague sits comfortably inside that definition, provided the employer follows a procedurally fair process. Workplace laws demand both a valid reason and a fair process. Miss either and the dismissal fails.

Out of hours, online, still your problem

The post at the centre of this case was made on a personal social media account. Many employers still believe that puts it beyond their reach. Two decades of Fair Work Commission decisions say otherwise.

The governing principle comes from Rose v Telstra: out-of-hours conduct can justify dismissal where it is likely to cause serious damage to the employment relationship, damages the employer’s interests, or is incompatible with the employee’s duties. Since Stutsel v Linfox in 2011, the Commission has applied that principle to personal social media accounts, and in Corry v ACTU in 2022 it upheld the summary dismissal of an employee for offensive posts made out of hours on a personal profile that did not even identify his employer.

The practical test is the connection to the employment relationship, and a post attacking a colleague has the strongest connection of all. For trades businesses, the highest-risk territory is rarely a formal press statement. It is the site group chat, the comment thread on a local community page, and the reply fired off at 9 pm. Workplace laws follow the conduct, not the clock.

The cost of condonation

Now to the 2017 and 2025 burqa incidents, because the contrast between them is the most useful management lesson in the whole saga.

Identical conduct. In 2017, no sanction. In 2025, one of the harshest penalties the Senate has imposed in decades. An employment lawyer reading that history would wince, because inconsistency is where disciplinary decisions come apart. When an employer tolerates conduct once, then punishes it later, the employee argues condonation: the business knew, did nothing, and cannot now treat the conduct as serious. When an employer punishes one worker harshly for conduct another worker got away with, the harsher penalty looks disproportionate and the dismissal looks unfair.

The Senate could absorb that inconsistency because its sanctions are political. A business cannot. Under workplace laws, every disciplinary decision you make sets the benchmark for the next one. The moment to act on misconduct is the first time it happens, with a proportionate, documented response. The 2025 censure also modelled the process well: a direction was given, an opportunity to apologise was provided, the refusal was recorded, and the sanction followed. That sequence- direction, opportunity, escalation- is exactly what workplace laws, through the requirement of procedural fairness, expect of an employer.

The safety dimension

There is a newer layer that did not exist in its current form when this dispute began. Work health and safety regulators across Australia now treat psychosocial hazards, including racism, bullying and harassment, as hazards employers must proactively manage under workplace laws, in the same way they manage a trench collapse risk or a live circuit.

Safe Work Australia’s model code of practice on psychosocial hazards makes the duty concrete: identify harmful behaviours, assess the risk, implement controls and review them. A business that waits for a complaint before acting has already breached the duty, because the duty is preventative. Racist conduct between workers is not just a discrimination exposure anymore. It is a safety incident, and safety regulators carry enforcement powers that discrimination commissions do not.

What different businesses should take from this

A trades operator running crews, apprentices and subcontractors carries every exposure this case illustrates, usually with no HR department to manage it. The checklist is short and achievable.

  • Put a code of conduct in writing that expressly covers racist and discriminatory behaviour, on site and online, during and outside work hours.
  • Adopt a social media policy that captures personal accounts where conduct connects to the business or to workmates.
  • Deliver toolbox training on the policies and keep attendance records. Training records are the backbone of the all reasonable steps defence.
  • Respond to every incident the first time, proportionately and in writing. Consistency is the whole game.
  • Treat racist behaviour as a psychosocial hazard in your safety system, not only as an HR matter.

The same framework carries across the economy, but each sector wears it differently.

Manufacturing operators face the exposure at scale. Shift-based workforces are often highly culturally diverse, supervisors hold real power on the floor, and conduct problems travel fast through cross-shift group chats. Safety regulators already visit these sites for physical hazards. Psychosocial hazards, including racism between workers, now sit on the same inspection list, so the conduct system needs the same rigour as the guarding on the machines.

Child care and early learning services carry the highest scrutiny of all. Educators work under the National Quality Framework, Child Safe Standards and Blue Card requirements, and families extend trust on the assumption that every adult in the room meets them. A discriminatory public post by an educator is not only a workplace law problem. It threatens regulatory standing, enrolments and the confidence of every family at the door, which is why conduct policies in this sector must expressly reach personal social media.

Allied health and NDIS providers answer to two regimes at once. Workplace laws govern them as employers, while the NDIS Code of Conduct and AHPRA professional standards govern practitioners individually. A racist post by a clinician can produce an employment matter, a registration notification and a Commission complaint from the same set of facts. Screening, induction and conduct training need to close all three doors together.

Professional services firms trade entirely on judgement, so a principal’s public conduct is the brand. Client agreements increasingly include conduct and reputation termination clauses, and professional bodies run their own disciplinary tracks beside employment law. In this sector, the partner-level social media policy matters as much as the staff one, because seniority multiplies the damage rather than excusing it.

Not-for-profits hold the framework with the least room for error. Funding agreements routinely require compliant conduct frameworks, ACNC governance standards demand them, and volunteers count as workplace participants under discrimination and safety law even though they are not employees. A conduct failure that a commercial business survives can end a program, a grant and a board’s standing in one stroke, so the policies must name volunteers explicitly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Could an employee really be dismissed for a post like the one in this case?

In many circumstances, yes. The Fair Work Commission has upheld dismissals for offensive out-of-hours social media posts where the conduct damages the employment relationship or the business. A public racist post directed at a colleague has a strong connection to employment. Workplace laws still require the employer to run a procedurally fair process before acting.

Is my business liable if a worker racially abuses a colleague online?

It can be. Section 18E of the Racial Discrimination Act makes employers vicariously liable for employee conduct done in connection with their duties, unless the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Similar provisions exist in other discrimination legislation. Liability can attach even if you knew nothing about the conduct.

What counts as all reasonable steps?

Courts assess it case by case against the size of the business, but the consistent core is: current written policies, genuine training with records, an accessible complaints process, and enforcement applied consistently. A policy sitting unread in a drawer does not count.

Do these obligations cover subcontractors on my site?

Largely, yes. Work health and safety duties extend to all workers you engage or influence, including subcontractors, and discrimination law protects workplace participants beyond direct employees. If they work under your direction on your site, plan on the basis that workplace laws make their conduct and their safety your concern.

Where SBAAS fits

SBAAS writes codes of conduct, social media policies and complaint-handling procedures that stand up to the scrutiny workplace laws apply, for trades businesses, allied health and NDIS providers, professional services firms and not-for-profits. If your policy set has not been reviewed since these obligations tightened, that is worth fixing now, calmly, rather than later, expensively. Book a conversation with our team, or learn more about who we are and how we work at https://sbaas.com.au/about-us/.

General information only. This article provides general information and commentary on workplace laws. It is not legal advice and does not account for your circumstances. Employment, discrimination and safety law change frequently and vary between jurisdictions. Seek professional or legal review before acting on compliance matters raised here.

Sources

Australian court rejects racial discrimination appeal by Pauline Hanson. (2026, July 27). Al Jazeera.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/27/australian-court-rejects-racial-discrimination-appeal-by-pauline-hanson

Race Discrimination Commissioner welcomes decision in Hanson v Faruqi appeal. (2026, July 27). Australian Human Rights Commission.

https://humanrights.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/media-releases/race/race-discrimination-commissioner-welcomes-decision-in-hanson-v-faruqi-appeal

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 18E: Vicarious liability. AustLII.

https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18e.html

Racial discrimination: Know your rights. Australian Human Rights Commission.

https://humanrights.gov.au/know-your-rights/rights-of-individuals/race-discrimination/racial-discrimination-the-law

Faruqi v Hanson case summary. (2024, November 25). Human Rights Law Centre.

https://www.hrlc.org.au/cases/2024-11-25-faruqi-v-hanson/

Far-right Australian senator suspended from Parliament for wearing burqa in protest. (2025, November 25). Associated Press via PBS NewsHour.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/far-right-australian-senator-suspended-from-parliament-for-wearing-burqa-in-protest

Impact of out of hours conduct on employment. (2026, January 7). Hall Payne Lawyers.

https://hallpayne.com.au/industrial-employment-law/impact-of-outside-work-conduct/

Offensive posts on personal social media accounts can get you sacked. Gilchrist Connell.

https://www.gclegal.com.au/insights/offensive-posts-on-personal-social-media-accounts-can-get-you-sacked-some-people-still-dont-get-it

Is a social media post grounds for dismissal? (2025, November 25). Prosper Law.

https://prosperlaw.com.au/social-media-post-grounds-for-dismissal/

Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work. Safe Work Australia.

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-code-practice-managing-psychosocial-hazards-work

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Federal Register of Legislation.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2009A00028/latest/text

0d9a8782 branding profiles

Eric Allgood is the Managing Director of SBAAS and brings over two decades of experience in corporate guidance, with a focus on governance and risk, crisis management, industrial relations, and sustainability.

He founded SBAAS in 2019 to extend his corporate strategies to small businesses, quickly becoming a vital support. His background in IR, governance and risk management, combined with his crisis management skills, has enabled businesses to navigate challenges effectively.

Eric’s commitment to sustainability shapes his approach to fostering inclusive and ethical practices within organisations. His strategic acumen and dedication to sustainable growth have positioned SBAAS as a leader in supporting small businesses through integrity and resilience.

Qualifications:

  • Master of Business Law
  • MBA (USA)
  • Graduate Certificate of Business Administration
  • Graduate Certificate of Training and Development
  • Diploma of Psychology (University of Warwickshire)
  • Bachelor of Applied Management

Memberships:

  • Small Business Association of Australia –
    International Think Tank Member and Sponsor
  • Australian Institute of Company Directors – MAICD
  • Institute of Community Directors Australia – ICDA
  • Australian Human Resource Institute – CAHRI

Our Consulting Services

Management Consulting

For larger companies, SBAAS transforms complexity into clarity with solutions that accelerate performance, growth and market resilience.

Compliance & Risk

From enterprise agreements to governance frameworks, SBAAS ensures compliance, reduces exposure and supports sustainable, risk-aware decision-making.
Learn more
sbaas financial management

Professional Writing Services

Content that elevates your message, builds credibility & drives impact across tenders, reports, policies and executive communications.

Consistency in Communication

Clear, plain-English documents that meet compliance standards, reduce risk, and protect reputation through accurate, accessible and professional communication.
Learn more

Small Business Consulting

For small businesses, tailored strategies in marketing, operations & growth that boost profitability and strengthen customer connections.

Sustainable Businesses

Expert guidance in compliance, HR, policies and financial systems that reduce risks and create a secure foundation for sustainable expansion.
Learn more

Start-ups

For start-ups, SBAAS provides everything needed to launch, from setting up your books to building websites and driving growth strategies.

Set-up for Success

From compliance requirements to business structure, SBAAS ensures new ventures start strong, minimise risks and build systems for lasting success.
Learn more

Further Reading

$34 Million and Counting: The July Fair Work Round-Up

July delivered a blunt lesson for every Australian employer. Some of the country’s largest and best-resourced organisations repaid staff more than $34 million, while smaller operators copped court penalties for ignoring the regulator. Here is what the July Fair Work round-up means for your business

Read More »

SBAAS Events

Skip to content