Hanson Told to Leave Australia’s Veterans Alone as Lambie Unleashes Over “Traitor” Cartoon
Senator Jacqui Lambie has issued a scathing rebuke to Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party regarding an animated political cartoon that repeatedly labels Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie as a traitor. Speaking on Thursday, 10 September 2026, Lambie demanded the immediate removal of the video content, characterising Hanson’s actions as cowardly and harmful to the veteran community.
The dispute centres on an episode of One Nation’s animated Please Explain series, which targeted Hastie specifically for his testimony during Ben Roberts-Smith’s unsuccessful defamation proceedings against Nine newspapers. Characters in the animation explicitly referred to Hastie using the word traitor, a description that has sparked intense political debate across Australian media.
Lambie, who served in the Australian Army for more than a decade, argued that the cartoon was not merely an attack on a single politician but an insult to all veterans who give evidence under oath. She declared during an interview with ABC Radio National that Australia’s soldiers should be held to high standards and must not be subjected to such public vilification.
One Nation Cartoon Targets SAS Witness Hastie
The controversy stems from the Roberts-Smith defamation case, where the Federal Court found in 2023 that Nine had proven the substantial truth of some allegations it published about the former soldier to the civil standard. This legal finding occurred within a defamation context where the burden of proof differs significantly from a criminal trial.
Hastie, who served as an SAS officer and deployed to Afghanistan twice, appeared as a witness during these proceedings. The animated series focused heavily on his role in this high-profile legal battle, using caricature to suggest he was disloyal to the nation for complying with subpoenas.
Roberts-Smith has since been charged with five counts of the war crime of murder concerning alleged incidents in Afghanistan. He denies these allegations and retains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law, a distinction that remains central to the ongoing legal landscape.
Lambie Condemns Hanson for Attacking Veterans
Lambie described Hanson’s cartoons as absolutely disgusting, criticising what she termed their violent content. She stated that attacking Andrew Hastie, a veteran who served in the Afghanistan war, represents the lowest ebb possible in political discourse.
During an appearance on ABC News, Lambie intensified her criticism by accusing Hanson of failing Australia’s veteran community entirely. She became emotional while claiming that Hanson had delayed the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
Lambie asserted that Hanson was no friend of a veteran, turning what began as a bitter dispute between Hastie and One Nation into a wider argument about how Australia treats former military personnel who provide testimony in legal proceedings.
Hanson Denies Personal Role in Traitor Accusation
Pauline Hanson has denied that she personally called Hastie a traitor, despite the cartoon being distributed through One Nation’s official political media and posted via her social-media presence. When questioned about the content, she did not agree to remove the video immediately.
Hastie described Hanson as weak and glass-jawed, noting that she was given an opportunity to take responsibility for the cartoon or remove it but chose neither. This distinction has failed to satisfy Hastie or his supporters, who argue that publishing and continuing to display the accusation makes One Nation responsible regardless of personal authorship.
Hastie Warns Attack Smears All Military Witnesses
Hastie warned that the cartoon’s message extended far beyond him because more than 20 other SAS veterans were reportedly called to provide evidence during the Roberts-Smith proceedings. He argued that veterans who comply with subpoenas and answer questions truthfully should not be attacked as traitors simply because their testimony is politically inconvenient.
He stated that Australian soldiers must uphold the rule of law and maintain high standards of conduct on the battlefield. Hastie has ruled out commencing legal action against Hanson, citing his inability to financially win a battle when she has the support of mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.
Rinehart has publicly supported Roberts-Smith and remains a prominent supporter of Hanson. Despite ruling out litigation, Hastie promised to impose political costs on One Nation for their continued stance on the matter.
Cross-Party Leaders Demand Removal of Cartoon
The criticism has not come only from Lambie; Opposition Leader Angus Taylor also called on Hanson to remove the cartoon, stating that Hastie had served Australia with distinction as an SAS officer. Nationals leader Matt Canavan described it as contemptible to describe a person who served in the Australian Defence Force as a traitor.
One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce expressed respect for Hastie’s military service and stated he did not believe Hastie was a traitor.
Satire Limits Do Not Shield Political Responsibility
Political satire has a long history of mocking leaders, parties and public institutions, often through deliberately exaggerated and provocative content. However, describing someone as a traitor carries a meaning that goes beyond an ordinary political joke, particularly when the target is a former soldier who gave evidence in a court case.
The central issue is not whether One Nation has the legal right to publish aggressive satire. The larger question is whether a party seeking greater political power should accept responsibility for the messages it distributes through its official channels.
Hanson cannot easily separate herself from content produced and promoted by her own party while simultaneously benefiting from the attention it generates. This dynamic complicates claims of personal distance from the material.
Controversy Highlights Treatment of Military Witnesses
The controversy raises an important question about the treatment of military witnesses in public life. Veterans should not be protected from legitimate scrutiny simply because they served in uniform, yet they should also not be branded traitors for complying with legal obligations or giving evidence under oath.
Lambie’s language was characteristically blunt, but her underlying argument is difficult to dismiss: supporting veterans must include supporting their right to tell the truth in court. Calling witnesses disloyal because their evidence damages a preferred political narrative risks discouraging others from speaking honestly.
If Hanson believes the cartoon has been misunderstood, she has the option of clarifying its intended message or removing it.
The situation underscores a broader tension between free speech protections and the dignity owed to those who have served their country. As the debate unfolds, the focus remains on whether political actors can hold themselves accountable for the narratives they amplify through official party media.