No. Nearly 1.2 million people have signed a Change.org petition calling for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to "remove" Anning from the Senate – the largest Change.org petition ever. But the Prime Minister has no such power – and nor does the Parliament.

Before 1987, both chambers were able to expel members – though it only ever happened once. In 1920, Labor opposition MP Hugh Mahon was expelled after he criticised the British government and expressed support for an Australian republic. Then-prime minister Billy Hughes accused him of sedition and he was expelled after a vote along party lines.

In 1987, the Parliamentary Privileges Act was amended to state: "A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House." It was changed following general agreement that only voters should have the power to expel an elected representative permanently.

In theory, that law could be changed again – as the Greens have proposed. But Twomey warns that would open up a constitutional can of worms by infringing the implied freedom of political communication that courts have found exists in our constitution. "There'd be real questions as to whether or not that was valid," she says.

Has Senator Anning broken laws against hate speech?

Anning may well be the subject of complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission, or its equivalents at a state level. However, experts doubt the senator would be found in breach of the law.

Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, for example, prohibits actions, including what is widely called hate speech, that "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people" based on race.

However, Anning's statements were directed at Muslims – adherents of the Islamic faith – not at a racial group. It was only earlier this year that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled television host Sonia Kruger had vilified Muslims in comments she made on The Today Show but found this did not constitute racial vilification.

Former race discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane put it this way: "We have federal laws against racial hatred, and state and territory laws against incitement of hatred and contempt, but it may be difficult for Anning's comments to be captured under such laws unless they involve hatred directed at people because of their race or ethnicity."

He added: "This should not take anything away from Anning's despicable comments about Muslim Australians. Enjoying free speech does not mean you enjoy freedom from criticism and censure. It certainly doesn't mean that you have a right to be a bigot."

Anning would have access to the defence of "fair comment" as prescribed by the law, as long as he was acting in good faith. When commentator Andrew Bolt was found to have acted unlawfully under section 18C, it was due to a combination of inflammatory rhetoric and errors in fact.

Human Rights Commissioner Ed Santow said he could not comment on the legality of Anning's published comments as his organisation may need to mediate on the matter. However, he condemned Anning for his "hateful speech".

"I am horrified that Senator Anning used his position to condemn 'the entire religion of Islam' as a 'violent ideology'," Santow said in a statement. "Words matter [and] such hateful speech can contribute to violence."

So what can Parliament do?  

Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong, who respectively lead the government and opposition in the Senate, have proposed a censure motion against Senator Anning when Parliament resumes in April. It would involve them putting a motion to the Senate expressing disapproval of Senator Anning's comments, which MPs would then vote to back or not. With the combined support of the major parties, the motion is certain to pass.

What would be the consequences?

Not much. Constitutional expert Anne Twomey wrote in The Conversation: "A censure motion is regarded as a serious form of rebuke, but it does not give rise to any further kind of punishment such as a fine or suspension."

Anning laughed off the threat of a censure motion on Monday. "I hope it's not too painful. Is Mr Morrison going to give me a flogging with his lace hanky or something?"

Has Senator Anning resiled from his remarks?

No. Anning used a press conference on Monday to double down on his comments and reject any suggestion he had engaged in hate speech. "I don't think it can be called hateful speech if I state a fact," he argued. "I don't regret anything I do."

What will happen to him at the election?

Anning was elected to the Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the disqualification of Malcolm Roberts on grounds of dual-citizenship. It has been noted that Anning received just 19 below-the-line votes on ballot papers – that is, was ranked number one just 19 times – but this is irrelevant as Anning appeared third on the One Nation ticket, which received enough votes to elect two senators.

Anning immediately left One Nation, briefly joining [Bob] Katter's Australian Party before he was kicked out for racism. He is up for re-election in May and is considered highly unlikely to retain his seat, as he is effectively competing against One Nation for the position.

Could Senator Anning face other penalties over the "egging" incident?

Victorian police are reviewing video footage and collecting witness statements relevant to an incident on Saturday in which Anning was egged by a teenager in Melbourne. The senator retaliated by striking at the 17-year-old twice while other men tackled the boy to the ground.

Victoria's Police Minister, Lisa Neville, said a number of people had exhibited "pretty bad behaviour" and police would look into whether any of them had over-reacted to the egging.

If Anning were convicted of common assault in Victoria, the maximum sentence applicable is three months' imprisonment. That would not be sufficient to disqualify him from Parliament, because disqualifications under section 44 of the constitution apply only when the maximum sentence is 12 months or longer. The federal election will come first, anyway.

Anning also maintains he acted in self defence. "That's what Australians do usually – if you're attacked, you defend yourself," he said on Monday. "He got a slap across the face, which is what his mother should have given him long ago."