THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP

ACTING SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SHADOW MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH PATRICIA KARVELAS, ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING

MONDAY 23 JUNE 2025

Topics: Israel-Iran conflict, US strikes on Iran nuclear facilities.

E&OE

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Andrew Hastie, welcome to the program.

ANDREW HASTIE: Good afternoon, PK.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Have you had your briefing that you were requesting yet?

ANDREW HASTIE: We haven't had our briefing yet. I understand there's plans to have it sometime tomorrow or on Wednesday, so we'll wait and see. But it was requested through the Opposition Leader's office, and we're looking forward to getting a thorough briefing from ONI and other agencies.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The Prime Minister has spoken today. He said we are not a central player in this conflict, and he explained the timing of today's statement as being a consequence of running an orderly, stable government. And the PM says there has been no change to Australia's terrorism alert level either. Do you accept that the kind of timeframe we've seen from the Government is about orderly, proper processes?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think the Prime Minister has been too slow, too silent, and too passive. Yesterday, we only heard from a spokesperson from the Government, which was a very ambiguous statement, and we only heard from the Prime Minister today, in fact. He called NSC this morning—not yesterday—and we saw his press conference with Penny Wong a little earlier. He's been quite passive, and I think this is a pattern that's emerging under the Prime Minister. And the question I have is: is this a question of confidence or competence on his part? Because we need our Prime Minister to be advocating for the national interest, with Donald Trump, with NATO, with a range of partners throughout our region.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: But why should our Government be rushing to judgment before it knows all the facts?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, I don't think it's about rushing to judgment. I think this was a very, very significant development and escalation in the Middle East. The US, our closest security partner, bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. It was a huge operation, and I think the Australian people deserved a statement from the Prime Minister yesterday. It affects our economic interests, you mentioned the Strait of Hormuz potentially being closed by Iran, we'll see oil prices go up—and we import all our crude and refined oil. It affects our diplomatic interests, we've had to do a hard closure of our Embassy in Tehran. We've still got just under 3,000 people in Iran who are hoping to leave, 1,500 or so in Israel who are hoping to leave. And it impacts our strategic interests as well, because a secure Middle East means that we have a secure Australia here at home. And that's why the Prime Minister should have stood up yesterday.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: US President Donald Trump has suggested the possibility of regime change. He used the term “promising to make Iran great again”. Do you support regime change?

ANDREW HASTIE: I don't support regime change. I'm a veteran of the forever wars, and I think we have to be really careful about what we wish for. I think it's sometimes better the devil you know. As repressive as this regime is, as terrible as it is, and as much as it persecutes a lot of minorities, we would see a mass migration of people out of Iran that would pose big questions for Europe, and you never know who's going to follow into the power vacuum and take control of a country. So, these are really important questions that policy makers need to be thinking through. If there was a regime change, I hope it would be done with as much order as the Iranian people could muster, and it would be done by them—not by an external power.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: So, does it worry you to see the US President talk in this kind of language, then?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think Donald Trump is someone who is opportunistic and transactional. You never know really what he's going to do next. And I think his social media account; it's an instrument of statecraft for him. So, I think he wants to keep the Iranians guessing, and he's also, I think, trying to urge them back to the negotiating table, get them back to where they can land a deal, have the International Atomic Energy Agency back into Iran and running watertight inspections of their nuclear facilities.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I know you've said that you're not an international law expert, but there are plenty of them, and many of them have put on the record that this is a violation of international law. In fact, Geoffrey Robertson, who is a very senior international law expert, says that not adhering to the law mean that, for instance, China doesn't have to adhere to the law and the rules-based order when it comes to Taiwan? Does that worry you that it sets a dangerous precedent?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I respect the opinion of these experts in international law. I'm not one of them. I take the position that Penny Wong took this morning, and that is that we support this strike because we couldn't have a nuclear Iran. Now, lawyers will debate that. I also made the point that we need to look at the wider context, and that is that Iran, last year, conducted missile attacks on Israel in April and October. It's been sponsoring terrorism through Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and their attacks since October 7th on Israel. So, there's a wider frame here. But I think it's true that in this world today, this is a world governed by might and not right. And anyone who talks about this rules-based global order is really being nostalgic, and this is the world that we're living in, and we can't afford to have countries like Iran with nuclear weapons. I think that's the bottom line I'd insist on here.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Well, what do you mean by nostalgic? I mean, the rules-based order is kind of instrumental, isn't it, to the world being able to function properly? Shouldn't we expect that our closest ally adheres to the rules?

ANDREW HASTIE: Sure. Look, I'd love to see a world that's orderly, where everyone is prosperous and everyone is secure. But I'm also a realist, and what we've seen over the last five to ten years is countries like Russia and Iran and China in our own region challenge the US rules-based global order. Those countries are revisionists. They want to revise the rules and bend them to their own interests, and they're expansionists as well, as we've seen with Russia in Ukraine. So, this is just the world as it is, not as we wish it to be, and we've got to respond to that. Which is, incidentally, why I think Australia should be increasing our defence expenditure so that we're in the best possible position to secure our own interests and we have as much agency as possible.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The Prime Minister was asked about what role Australia may have played here. He was specifically asked about Pine Gap. He wouldn't answer or elaborate there. Do you think he should? Should he be transparent about those issues?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, the line that the Prime Minister used several times was that it was a “unilateral action taken by the United States”. I think there's very sensitive work done by our ally, the United States here, we collaborate with them. Some of that has to be protected because it's national security, and it's wise that we protect that. It's prudent that we protect that. But it was a unilateral action taken by the Government, and I think that's a satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, how about more action from the United States? Would you be worried if it's not just one and done, but the United States continues?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I think President Trump is under immense pressure from his base, the MAGA base, the America First base, who are in many respects, scarred by the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, he's going to feel that political pressure. And I think the purpose of these strikes was, number one, to re-establish deterrence, to send a message to the world that the US will use force to insist on denying hostile states weapons of mass destruction, and I think that's really important. So, I hope this is a limited action. But if the US does continue, I'm sure the Prime Minister, being active and not passive in fighting for the Australian national interest, will pick up the phone. Indeed, I hope he flies somewhere to see Donald Trump and start rebuilding that relationship.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, but when you say you hope it's one and done, if there is more action, is there a blank cheque of support from the Opposition, or will you make calculated assessments if you support further action from the United States?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, in as much as Donald Trump is America First, we are Australia First. We'll always insist on our sovereignty, our values and our national interest. The US is our closest security partner. It's a very close relationship, and that's why we're troubled that Anthony Albanese has not been able to establish a personal relationship with President Trump. I think that is a problem. President Trump's been elected for more than seven months now, and that's why I would encourage the Prime Minister to go to NATO, not send his Deputy Prime Minister—but to go himself, seek a meeting with Donald Trump, and build a deeper relationship with our European allies.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Andrew Hastie, great to speak to you. Thanks for joining us.

ANDREW HASTIE: Thanks, PK.

[ENDS]