Hanson, Senator Pauline Lee; Censure

Faruqi supported the censure, describing Hanson as a racist whose comments were politically calculated to inflame divisions. Faruqi criticised both major parties for failing to adequately address Islamophobia and for legitimising anti-Muslim hate through policy and rhetoric. Faruqi argued that the motion was performative and insufficient, calling for stronger government action against systemic racism.

Thorpe moved an amendment calling for the urgent implementation of the National Anti-Racism Framework, arguing that words alone were insufficient to tackle racism. Thorpe characterised the censure motion as a political stunt designed to influence preference deals in the Farrer by-election. Thorpe accused the government of neglecting the framework delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission in November 2024.

Hanson opposed the motion, describing it as a political stunt driven by concern over One Nation's polling performance. Hanson argued that her comments had been misreported and lacked context, particularly regarding radical Islam. Hanson claimed that the government failed to adequately address terrorist incidents and that the censure was an attempt to silence legitimate debate.

Sheldon supported the censure, highlighting the contributions of Muslim Australians to society and the harm caused by Hanson's rhetoric. Sheldon cited examples of community support provided by the Lebanese Muslim Association and the advocacy work of Mariam Veiszadeh. Sheldon referenced the bravery of Ahmed Al Ahmed during the Bondi attack to illustrate the positive role of Muslims in Australia.

Ruston condemned Hanson's comments as inflammatory and divisive, stating they had no place in Australian society. Ruston noted that an amendment to explicitly condemn the comments was precluded by the motion's structure. Ruston affirmed the value of Australia's cultural and religious diversity while aligning with the coalition's position against formal censure.