In a dramatic turn of events, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has ignited a fierce debate in the Australian Senate by alleging that Senator Fatima Payman may be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution due to questions surrounding her Afghan citizenship status. The confrontation led to a heated exchange between the crossbench senators, culminating in Lidia Thorpe storming out of the chamber while making an obscene gesture towards Hanson.
Hanson’s Allegation Sparks Controversy
Hanson tabled documents in the Senate on Wednesday morning, claiming that Payman, who was born in Afghanistan, had not provided sufficient evidence to prove she had revoked her Afghan citizenship. Under section 44 of the Australian Constitution, federal politicians are prohibited from holding dual citizenship, as it states that a person is ineligible to sit in parliament if they are “under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power.”
The One Nation leader’s attempt to refer the matter for investigation was met with opposition from Senate President Sue Lines, who stated in the tabled documents that Payman had provided the necessary information to be elected and that Hanson’s claim did not meet the procedural requirements for considering questions concerning a senator’s qualification.
Payman Fires Back
In response to Hanson’s allegations, Payman launched a scathing attack on the One Nation senator, accusing her of racism and bringing “disgrace to the human race.” The heated exchange saw Payman withdraw her comments after the initial outburst.
“You’re not just vindictive, mean, nasty. You bring disgrace to the human race. How do you live with yourself, Senator Hanson, with such violent hatred?”
– Senator Fatima Payman
According to Payman’s April 2022 register of qualifications, she had approached the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in October 2021 to renounce her citizenship. The embassy informed her that she had completed all the necessary steps, but due to the new Taliban government in Kabul, her application for renunciation could not be finalized.
Thorpe’s Dramatic Exit
The debate took an even more dramatic turn when Lidia Thorpe, visibly angered by the proceedings, appeared to rip up a paper copy of Hanson’s motion and threw it in the One Nation leader’s direction. Thorpe then walked out of the chamber, holding up her middle finger in a defiant gesture.
Echoes of the Eligibility Crisis
The incident has drawn comparisons to the 2017-2018 parliamentary eligibility crisis, which saw 15 federal politicians, including One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts, step down due to section 44 issues related to dual citizenship. Roberts was ultimately ruled ineligible by the High Court because of his British citizenship.
Hanson, in a written statement following the debate, claimed that “the tough standards applied to elected representatives during the 2017 eligibility crisis had not been applied to Payman.” She vowed to persist with her questioning of Payman’s eligibility, despite the opposition from other senators.
“Try as they might, however, they can’t wish this matter away. I’m not the only one in Parliament questioning the surprising lack of documents in Payman’s disclosure supporting her claim she took reasonable steps to renounce her Afghan citizenship.”
– Senator Pauline Hanson
The Road Ahead
The Senate is set to consider a formal vote on referring Payman’s eligibility for inquiry on Wednesday afternoon. Insider sources suggest that the Labor party will oppose the push, potentially quashing Hanson’s efforts to investigate the matter further.
As the dust settles on this explosive confrontation, questions remain about the potential ramifications for Payman, Hanson, and the broader implications for parliamentary eligibility standards. The incident has once again thrust the issue of dual citizenship and constitutional compliance into the national spotlight, evoking memories of the chaos that engulfed federal politics just a few years ago.
Only time will tell whether this latest controversy will reignite the eligibility crisis or if it will be relegated to a mere footnote in the tumultuous history of the Australian Senate. For now, all eyes are on the upcoming vote and the potential fallout from this extraordinary clash between three of the chamber’s most prominent and polarizing figures.
