Andrew Hastie has declared Pauline Hanson’s handling of a controversial One Nation cartoon has shown she is not fit to become prime minister, escalating an increasingly personal political fight over a video that repeatedly describes the Liberal frontbencher as a “traitor”.
The former SAS officer accused Hanson of taking the “weak option” after she refused to either accept responsibility for the language used in the video or remove it from her social media account.
Hastie said Hanson had shown herself to be “weak” and “glass-jawed”, arguing those qualities should disqualify her from the national leadership ambitions he says she has expressed.
The extraordinary attack represents the latest escalation in a dispute that has rapidly moved beyond an argument over political satire and into a broader contest over military service, the treatment of veterans and One Nation’s challenge to the Coalition on the political right.
The video at the centre of the controversy was published by One Nation and shared on Hanson’s X account. It repeatedly portrays Hastie as a “traitor” — the word appears eight times — and also uses the insult “gutless maggot”.
Hanson insists she has never personally called Hastie a traitor.
She has described the production as a satirical cartoon and rejected demands that it be deleted, saying people should watch it themselves and make up their own minds.
Hastie argues that defence avoids the central issue.
His position is that a political leader who publishes material on her own social media account cannot simultaneously distance herself from its contents when challenged about them.
He has given Hanson what he describes as two choices: own the accusation or remove the cartoon.
When Hanson did neither, Hastie said she had demonstrated a lack of strength under pressure.
A dispute over the meaning of ‘traitor’
Hanson has disputed Hastie’s interpretation of the cartoon and said the controversy has been blown out of proportion.
She told the ABC she had not accused him of betraying Australia and said the material should be understood as satire.
Hanson has also argued that criticism of Hastie as a “traitor” emerged from anger among some voters over his position on legislation passed after the Bondi terrorist attack, rather than from his role in the Ben Roberts-Smith court proceedings.
She said some people had accused Hastie of betraying promises to his electorate after he ultimately supported elements of Labor’s hate speech legislation.
Hastie rejects the attempt to separate the video from the wider attacks on his record.
For him, the language carries particular weight because of his military service and because One Nation has repeatedly criticised his involvement in the defamation proceedings brought by former SAS corporal Ben Roberts-Smith.
Hastie served in the Australian Army between 2007 and 2015, including with the Special Air Service Regiment, before entering federal parliament. He now represents the West Australian seat of Canning and serves as Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability as well as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives.
He was subpoenaed to give evidence in Roberts-Smith’s Federal Court defamation case and has strongly defended his decision to comply with the court process.
Hastie says describing him as a traitor in that context is not merely a personal insult. He argues it also attacks other veterans who gave evidence under oath and suggests Australian soldiers who participate honestly in judicial proceedings are somehow betraying their comrades.
“I am proud of my service to this country, in uniform and in this parliament,” Hastie said during the dispute.
He said the accusation represented a slur not only against him but against veterans who had given evidence before the Federal Court.
Roberts-Smith case remains before the courts
The Roberts-Smith case is an especially sensitive backdrop to the political confrontation.
Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient and former SAS soldier, lost his high-profile defamation case against newspapers published by Nine in 2023.
The Federal Court found, applying the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, that several serious allegations published about his conduct in Afghanistan were substantially true.
That civil judgment must be distinguished from the criminal proceedings he now faces.
On 7 April 2026, the Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Special Investigator charged Roberts-Smith with five offences of the war crime of murder.
Prosecutors allege he intentionally caused the deaths of five Afghan nationals who were not taking an active part in hostilities during deployments between 2009 and 2012.
Roberts-Smith denies wrongdoing. The criminal charges have not been proven and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Hanson has been one of his most prominent political supporters, while One Nation has publicly campaigned in support of him.
That has increased the political significance of Hastie’s involvement in the earlier civil proceedings and helped turn his evidence into a point of attack from some One Nation supporters.
Hastie says the issue should instead be understood through the rule of law.
His argument is that military service cannot put a person beyond scrutiny and that Australian soldiers should be expected to meet high standards of conduct, including cooperating truthfully when required to appear in court.
Lambie tells Hanson to ‘leave our veterans alone’
The row has now drawn politicians from across party lines into Hastie’s defence.
Independent senator and military veteran Jacqui Lambie delivered one of the strongest attacks on Hanson on Thursday, describing the cartoon as “absolutely disgusting”.
Lambie argued that attacking a veteran who served in Afghanistan over his involvement in a legal process represented an unacceptable low point in political campaigning.
She urged Hanson to remove the video and warned veterans considering supporting or representing One Nation to think carefully about the party’s treatment of Hastie.
The controversy has also produced support for Hastie from politicians who rarely agree with his politics.
Greens senator David Shoebridge said he fundamentally disagreed with much of Hastie’s political agenda but believed attacking someone for going into court and giving evidence they considered truthful was contemptible.
Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek said public life should retain respect for people who had risked their lives for Australia.
Liberal senator Paul Scarr went further, calling the cartoon disgraceful and saying there was “no doubt whatsoever” it should be removed.
That cross-party response has made it harder to characterise the clash simply as another battle between rival conservative parties.
Instead, the argument has increasingly become one about the boundaries of political attack and whether accusations associated with treason should be treated differently when directed at serving or former military personnel.
Joyce tries to lower the temperature
Barnaby Joyce, who is now with One Nation, has sought to distance himself from the most inflammatory language.
Joyce says he has never called Hastie a traitor and does not believe he is one.
He initially said he had not seen the satirical cartoon and was unaware it contained the accusation when he defended Hanson’s statement that she had not personally used the term.
By Thursday morning, Joyce said he had contacted Hastie directly.
He told the ABC he had left the door open for a conversation and stressed that he respected Hastie’s service to Australia.
Joyce also expressed disappointment that Hastie had called him both a liar and a coward.
Despite the attempted outreach, the political competition behind the dispute remains intense.
Canning becoming a major One Nation target
Hastie’s federal seat of Canning is emerging as a significant battleground between the Liberal Party and One Nation ahead of the next election.
One Nation has made clear it wants to defeat the Liberal frontbencher.
The party’s confidence has been strengthened by its recent victory in the West Australian state seat of Secret Harbour, which overlaps geographically with parts of the federal electorate of Canning.
State and federal elections operate under different political dynamics, but the result demonstrated that One Nation can attract substantial support in an area Hastie will need to defend.
Hanson has openly targeted the Liberal MP, while Hastie has responded by promising an aggressive campaign.
He says One Nation has “picked a fight with the wrong veteran” and has vowed to make any attempt to capture Canning expensive in time, money and political capital.
Hastie has rejected suggestions his anger over the cartoon is driven by concern about his electoral future.
He says he is not worried about losing his seat but is deeply concerned about being branded a traitor after having served Australia overseas.
The distinction is politically useful to Hastie as well as personally important.
One Nation is attempting to expand its appeal among voters who have traditionally supported the Coalition, particularly Australians dissatisfied with migration levels, cost-of-living pressures and the direction of the major parties.
Hastie is one of the Liberal Party figures with a strong conservative profile, meaning an attack on his seat would pit One Nation directly against the Coalition for many of the same voters.
The dispute over the cartoon is therefore becoming an early test of how that competition might unfold.
No court fight, but a political one
Hastie has ruled out taking legal action over the video.
Instead, he says he intends to impose a political cost on One Nation.
That leaves Hanson with little incentive to retreat immediately. She has continued to deny personally describing Hastie as a traitor and has resisted calls to delete the cartoon.
The result is an unusual political stand-off in which both sides are arguing over responsibility for words that are plainly present in published campaign material but that Hanson insists do not represent a direct personal allegation from her.
Hastie’s response is that leadership requires taking responsibility for material published under a leader’s banner.
It was on that basis that he moved beyond demanding an apology or deletion and directly questioned Hanson’s suitability for the prime ministership.
For Hanson, dismissing the controversy as satire may appeal to supporters who regard political cartoons as legitimate provocation and see the backlash as excessive.
For Hastie, however, the refusal to withdraw the material provides an opportunity to turn One Nation’s attack back on its leader.
With Lambie and figures from Labor, the Greens and the Liberal Party now challenging the cartoon, what began as a social media post has become a test of political judgment for Hanson and a rallying point for Hastie.
And with Canning already in One Nation’s sights, the dispute is unlikely to disappear when the cartoon leaves the daily news cycle.
It is increasingly becoming part of a much larger fight over who can credibly represent Australia’s conservative voters — and, in Hastie’s telling, who has the temperament required to aspire to lead the country.
