Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie has launched an extraordinary attack on Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce, calling the two One Nation figures “lying cowards” as an increasingly bitter dispute over a satirical political cartoon spills into a broader fight about military service, political accountability and the looming contest for his West Australian seat.

The federal member for Canning, a former Special Air Service Regiment officer who served in Afghanistan, objected to a One Nation video posted to Hanson’s social media account in July that repeatedly depicts him as a “traitor”. Hastie says the cartoon uses the description eight times and also includes the insult “gutless maggot”.

Hastie argues the dispute goes far beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of political satire because the references are linked to his decision to give evidence in the Federal Court during the defamation proceedings brought by former SAS corporal and Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.

Speaking to News24 on Wednesday, Hastie accused Hanson and Joyce of refusing to accept responsibility for material associated with their party while simultaneously denying they had personally branded him a traitor.

“Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce are lying cowards,” Hastie said, repeating the accusation to remove any doubt about whom he was targeting.

His demand was straightforward: One Nation should either stand by the accusation contained in the cartoon or remove it.

Hastie said being attacked over his military record was particularly serious because he had served his country in uniform and had been required to give evidence under oath. He also argued that portraying his testimony as an act of betrayal risked casting the same slur on other former soldiers who participated in the Federal Court proceedings.

The Liberal MP has framed the issue as a question of whether Australian servicemen and women should be able to give truthful evidence in legal proceedings without being branded disloyal for doing so.

Hastie was subpoenaed to give evidence during Roberts-Smith’s lengthy defamation case against three newspapers. The case ended in 2023 with the Federal Court finding, under the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, that a number of serious allegations published about Roberts-Smith were substantially true.

The civil case is separate from the criminal proceedings Roberts-Smith now faces.

In April 2026, Roberts-Smith was charged with five offences of the war crime of murder over the alleged deaths of five Afghan nationals between 2009 and 2012. Commonwealth prosecutors allege the men were not taking an active part in hostilities when they were killed. Roberts-Smith denies wrongdoing, has not been found guilty of those charges and is entitled to the presumption of innocence as the criminal case proceeds.

For Hastie, the distinction between supporting fellow veterans and respecting the rule of law has become central to his argument against One Nation.

He has maintained that serving in the military does not place anyone beyond legal scrutiny and that Australian troops should be held to high standards of conduct. He has also rejected the suggestion that giving evidence under oath against another former soldier amounts to disloyalty to the Defence Force or the country.

The confrontation intensified after Hanson rejected Hastie’s interpretation of the video.

She said she had never personally called him a traitor and described the production as a satirical cartoon. She also made clear she did not intend to remove it, telling viewers they could watch it and form their own conclusions.

Hastie responded by arguing that the distinction was meaningless when the video appeared on Hanson’s account and repeatedly used the word in reference to him. He accused the One Nation leader of refusing both options he had offered: accepting responsibility for the language or deleting the material.

Barnaby Joyce, the former Nationals leader who is now a One Nation MP, has taken a different approach.

Joyce said he had never called Hastie a traitor and did not consider him one. He initially said he had not seen the cartoon and was unaware of the references when he defended Hanson’s denial.

By Thursday morning, Joyce said he had reached out directly to Hastie and told him his door was open if he wanted to discuss the dispute. Joyce said he respected Hastie’s military service and expressed disappointment at being labelled both a liar and a coward.

That effort has not, however, ended the political fight.

The controversy has instead attracted support for Hastie from figures across the political spectrum, including politicians who disagree sharply with many of his broader views.

Independent senator and military veteran Jacqui Lambie delivered one of the strongest responses, condemning the cartoon and demanding Hanson leave veterans out of such attacks.

Greens senator David Shoebridge also defended the principle at stake, arguing that attacking someone because they went to court and gave evidence they believed to be true crossed a line regardless of political disagreements.

Labor minister Tanya Plibersek said people who had risked their lives for Australia deserved respect, while Liberal senator Paul Scarr said the cartoon should be removed.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has also called on Hanson to take it down, pointing to Hastie’s service as an SAS officer.

The cross-party reaction has given the dispute a significance beyond another clash between the Liberals and One Nation. It has raised a more fundamental question about how political parties use military service, patriotism and allegations of betrayal when attacking opponents.

It is also unfolding against an increasingly important electoral backdrop.

Hastie represents Canning, south of Perth, and One Nation has openly identified the seat as a target for the next federal election. The party recently demonstrated its strength in part of the same region by winning the West Australian state seat of Secret Harbour at a by-election.

Secret Harbour sits within the broader federal electorate of Canning, making that result politically significant even though state and federal voting patterns do not always translate directly.

Hanson has made little secret of her ambition to challenge Hastie, while Hastie has vowed that any One Nation attempt to take Canning will be an expensive political battle.

He has insisted his response to the cartoon is not motivated by fear of losing his seat. Instead, he says the central issue is being described as a traitor after serving Australia and complying with a court subpoena.

That distinction matters because the argument comes at a time when One Nation is attempting to expand beyond its traditional protest vote and compete directly with the Coalition in conservative electorates.

Joyce’s move to One Nation has sharpened that competition. The former deputy prime minister represented one of the most recognisable figures in the Nationals for years before joining Hanson’s party, giving One Nation a high-profile figure with deep experience in federal politics.

Hastie, meanwhile, occupies a prominent position within the Liberal Party. Parliament records list him as the member for Canning, Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives.

The clash therefore brings together three politicians with overlapping appeal to sections of the conservative electorate — and highlights the increasingly direct competition between One Nation and the Coalition for voters dissatisfied with the major parties.

But the Roberts-Smith element has made this particular confrontation more combustible than an ordinary electoral contest.

The former soldier’s criminal proceedings remain before the courts, and no criminal finding of guilt has been made. That makes careful language around the case particularly important.

Hastie has argued that politicising the evidence given by veterans risks damaging both confidence in the legal process and the willingness of people to speak honestly when called before a court.

His critics within One Nation have instead defended the right to use satire and political commentary to attack public figures, while Hanson has maintained that she herself did not personally make the allegation Hastie attributes to her.

The argument is therefore unlikely to be resolved simply by determining who physically spoke or wrote a particular phrase. The deeper dispute is about political responsibility for material published by a party or promoted on a leader’s account.

Hastie’s position is that Hanson cannot distance herself from the accusation while continuing to host and defend the cartoon. Hanson’s position is that the distinction between a satirical character and her own personal words matters.

Joyce, meanwhile, appears to be attempting to separate himself from the cartoon entirely while keeping the door open to a personal conversation with Hastie.

For now, neither side appears ready to retreat.

Hanson has resisted demands to remove the video, while Hastie has ruled out turning the dispute into a legal battle and instead says he intends to impose a political cost on One Nation.

With Canning already emerging as a potential battleground for the next federal election, the confrontation is increasingly becoming about more than one cartoon.

It is a contest over reputation, military service, the limits of political attack and which party can claim the loyalty of conservative voters — a fight that could continue well beyond the parliamentary week in Canberra.