The short version
- Senator Jacqui Lambie and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor have publicly demanded the removal of a One Nation cartoon that labels Andrew Hastie a traitor.
- Hastie, an SAS veteran, declined to pursue legal action against Pauline Hanson due to her financial backing by billionaire Gina Rinehart but vowed political consequences.
- Critics from across the political spectrum argue that attacking a witness for giving sworn testimony undermines democratic standards and disrespects military service.
A significant political dispute has erupted in Australia following the release of an animated cartoon by One Nation that characterizes Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie as a traitor. The video, which circulated on social media platforms, accuses Hastie of betraying his fellow soldiers after he provided evidence against Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith during a failed defamation lawsuit brought by the decorated veteran against Nine newspapers. The incident has drawn sharp condemnation from figures across the political spectrum, highlighting deep divisions regarding free speech, military honor, and political accountability.
Senator Jacqui Lambie, a Tasmanian independent and former soldier herself, issued some of the most forceful criticism. She described One Nation leader Pauline Hanson as a coward for allowing the content to remain online and accused her of revealing her true character through such attacks. Lambie emphasized that targeting veterans who have served in conflict zones like Afghanistan represents a low point in political discourse. She warned potential voters, particularly those with military backgrounds, to reconsider their support for One Nation given the party's willingness to engage in what she termed disgusting and violent rhetoric.
The controversy centers on Hastie’s role as a witness in the Roberts-Smith case. Roberts-Smith and his supporters, including Hanson and billionaire Gina Rinehart, have argued that the veteran is being unfairly targeted over allegations of war crimes committed between 2009 and 2012. Hastie gave evidence under oath during the proceedings, which ultimately did not result in a successful defamation claim for Roberts-Smith against the media outlet. Despite the legal outcome, One Nation has continued to frame Hastie’s testimony as an act of disloyalty, prompting Hastie to challenge Hanson directly to take ownership of the party’s messaging.
Hastie stated that he would not pursue legal action against Hanson, citing the substantial financial resources available to her through Rinehart’s backing. He noted that engaging in a costly legal battle with someone financed by one of Australia’s wealthiest individuals would be strategically unwise. Instead, Hastie promised to impose political costs on Hanson for her refusal to either publicly endorse the cartoon’s content or remove it. He characterized her stance as weak and argued that she is unfit to govern due to her willingness to cast slurs against veterans who uphold high standards of conduct.
Opposition Leader Angus Taylor joined the chorus of critics, calling for the immediate removal of the cartoon during a press conference. While Taylor declined to endorse Hastie’s personal characterization of Hanson as having a glass jaw, he firmly stated that it was wrong for the video to remain accessible online. He highlighted Hastie’s distinguished service as an officer in the Special Air Service Regiment and argued that such attacks on a decorated veteran were inappropriate. Taylor’s intervention signaled broader discomfort within the Liberal Party regarding One Nation’s tactics.
Criticism also came from the Greens, with Senator David Shoebridge expressing dismay at the attack on Hastie for fulfilling his civic duty to testify under oath. Shoebridge noted that while he frequently disagrees with Hastie’s policy positions, the principle of protecting witnesses who tell the truth as they understand it is paramount. He described the situation as disgraceful, emphasizing that no political party should stand by attacks on individuals simply because they participate in the judicial process. This perspective underscores a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on procedural integrity.
Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson added to the pressure on One Nation, stating that Hanson and her strategist James Ashby should feel ashamed of their actions. Paterson contrasted Hastie’s frontline service in Afghanistan against Islamist terrorists with the lack of comparable military service among One Nation members. He argued that accusing someone who has served in uniform of being a traitor is one of the gravest accusations possible, particularly when directed at someone like Hastie who enlisted after the September 11 attacks to fight terrorism.
The incident reflects broader tensions within Australian politics regarding the treatment of veterans and the boundaries of political rhetoric. While One Nation maintains that Roberts-Smith is being unfairly targeted, the method of attacking a witness for giving evidence has drawn widespread rebuke. The debate continues to evolve as Hastie seeks to hold Hanson accountable through political means rather than legal ones. The outcome may influence public perception of both parties and set precedents for how future conflicts involving military figures are handled in the public sphere.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Jacqui Lambie says Pauline Hanson a ‘bloody coward’ after One Nation cartoon calling Andrew Hastie a traitor
