Grattan on Friday: it’s taken Hanson’s overreach on Hastie to put some spine into Liberals

Pauline Hanson declared in a recent News24 documentary: “I don’t back down”.

This week Hanson and her party followed through, in two high-risk demonstrations of heels firmly dug in.

In the face of demands from Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie, Hanson refused to withdraw one of her Please Explain animated cartoons that depicts (in multiple mentions) the decorated former soldier as a “traitor”.

On a very different front, One Nation is toughing out a controversy around Warren Pickering, its leader for the November Victorian election, after his admissions – following allegations from his former partner – of extensive drug use as a young man.

The battle with Hastie is highly consequential not only for One Nation, but also for the Liberal Party.

Hanson’s animated cartoons, edgy and popular, have been among One Nation’s savviest political tactics. This one, however, not only went over the top, but poked a political bear who, given his background in the SAS, defaults to fight not flight when his reputation is impugned.

Hastie began on Wednesday by calling Hanson (and One Nation’s treasury spokesman Barnaby Joyce) “lying cowards”; by Thursday he was describing her as “weak and glass-jawed”.

Hanson and Hastie have been targeting each other for months, with One Nation chasing Hastie’s Western Australian seat of Canning. The party’s recent win in the state byelection for Secret Harbour, mainly inside Canning, only intensified things.

One Nation’s antagonism towards Hastie is particularly driven by his giving evidence against Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith in the latter’s failed defamation case. He’ll probably have to do so again, in the coming trial of Roberts-Smith, accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, where both men served.

Hastie has previously publicly called out those Liberals inclined to accommodate the insurgent party, especially WA leader Basil Zempilas in the byelection.

But this escalation of the Hanson-Hastie confrontation is changing the dynamic. Several of Hastie’s Coalition colleagues were quick to back him publicly, and there was applause in the Coalition party room. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor said Hanson should take down the video.

If the episode is pushing the Liberals together in their response to One Nation (although that may not last), it is also pointing to underlying divisions among the Hansonites.

Joyce has been clearly uncomfortable. After saying on Wednesday he hadn’t been aware of the offending cartoon, he texted Hastie later, inviting him to make contact. Joyce has to do a lot of cleaning up after Hanson, but this is too much.

Hanson was on the back foot. Her line that she had not called Hastie a traitor and respected his war service was an implausible defence. She authorised the cartoon (which went live in July). Her claim this was just “satire” also didn’t wash.

Regardless, Hanson on Thursday opened a new front against Hastie, with Roberts-Smith in mind.

Referencing a 2024 change to Australia’s war crimes legislation, that was backdated, Hanson tweeted the law had passed on the voices “so we don’t know where Hastie stood”. Journalists should ask Hastie “do you support retrospectively changing criminal law to make prosecutions of veterans easier?” She later tried unsuccessfully to move an amendment to the legislation in the Senate.

The latest polls have One Nation’s national number strong; subsequent polling will indicate whether supporters are concerned about the attacks on Hastie.

At one level the Victorian election is a side hustle for Hanson; at another it is a significant judgement moment. So how to react to the public revelations about Pickering was an important strategic decision, especially for the party’s national director James Ashby, who was formerly Hanson’s chief of staff.

As commentators have observed, if this had been a Labor or Liberal leader, they would probably have been on their bikes.

But One Nation, obviously previously aware of the allegations, was sticking by its man. In her not-backing-down mode, when asked about Pickering, Hanson said on Monday, “It is a personal situation. He said he denies the false allegations that have been made against him.”

This dismissal wasn’t going to hold up. By Tuesday One Nation unveiled an elaborate response to the Pickering problem. Pickering’s story became one of redemption.

A news conference was called, with Ashby, Pickering, his daughter, Jhett, and his stepson, Johnny.

Adopting the demeanour of a lawyer acting for his client, Ashby outlined Pickering’s background with his former partner. Pickering then spoke about his past extensive drug habit and turning his life around. Johnny and Jhett supported him.

Pickering, 43, told the media conference:

I’m proud of the man I am today. I sure as hell would not have run for office four times in the last five years if I wasn’t firmly in my convictions and comfortable with who I am today. I’d like to provide an example to people that intend to turn their lives around, that have maybe done it a little rough or made some mistakes when they were younger.

Apart from whatever appeal the redemption narrative might have, One Nation is seeking cut through with the fact that after all his personal issues, the defence force accepted Pickering and he served some years in it.

One hardhead in One Nation predicts voters will be split over Pickering, his background putting off some people while others empathise with him. A fear among some Victorian Liberals will be that Pickering’s story might increase the One Nation state vote.

Amid the pyrotechnics, One Nation this week challenged government and opposition on the policy front, releasing a plan to allow homebuyers and renters access to some of their superannuation.

This caught out the opposition, which has itself been flirting with potential changes to superannuation arrangements. The government, unsurprisingly, hit the nuclear response button, with projections of how much worse off future retirees would be under One Nation’s plan. Treasurer Jim Chalmers declared this was an “existential moment” for Australian superannuation.

Probably not quite that, but it’s likely that how Australia’s landmark superannuation scheme should operate is set to be one of the major issues of the 2028 election.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.