THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY
FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH SARAH FERGUSON, 7:30

Tuesday 20 October 2026

Topics: Helen Haines.

E&OE……………………………………

SARAH FERGUSON: Tanya Plibersek is the Social Services Minister and joins me in the studio. Andrew Hastie is the Shadow Industry Minister. He joins us from Mandurah in WA. You're both very welcome. Tanya, if I may start with you. Have you changed your behaviour? Will you change your behaviour again because of this?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I've changed my behaviour in some ways. I often, for example, don't advertise street stalls on social media. I would letterbox, instead, of a local community where I'm going to be in public, rather than broadcast it more broadly. I post photos after I've left an event, rather than if I'm at an event if there's no sense of security around. So, in small ways, I've changed my behaviour. But Sarah, I don't respond very well to threats, and so I feel quite determined to try and be as available as I possibly can to my constituents. Our thoughts today are 100 per cent focused on Helen and her family, her staff, her volunteers – all of the people who love her. So, I think more detailed sort of conversations about how we stay safer will happen over coming weeks. Our primary thoughts today are all about Helen, but I think the idea that things haven't changed in my 30 years almost in Parliament. That just not true.

SARAH FERGUSON: Just explain, if I may, just before I go to Andrew Hastie, how they have changed. What has changed, both in the language and the nature of interactions you're having?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, there's always been threats. You know, years ago, I had someone slip a note under my front door at home, no stamp on it or anything, they'd obviously turned up in person, saying they hope my children die of painful cancers. I've had-I mean, I couldn't even count the number of death threats, rape threats that I've had over the years, and you know, including ones that have ended up in court. The thing that's changed most is the industrial scale of that abuse now, and there has always been abuse but I am shocked by the tenor of it. Yesterday, I posted something about Jacqui Lambie saying that I thought that the cartoon mocking her vaginal prolapse was in extremely poor taste, and 24 hours after I posted that, this afternoon, after this attack on Helen Haines, someone wrote under that post defending Jackie Lambie, "she deserves to meet a Land Cruiser". Now, I don't know what kind of person does that.

SARAH FERGUSON: That is a deeply shocking thing for you to report. Can I bring in Andrew Hastie because you were nodding when Tanya Plibersek was talking about how the scale of this has changed. You obviously had some additional security yourself this year after interactions online. Has it changed for you in the time, the shorter time, that you've been in politics? But also, when those interactions happened with you, did you consider they could translate to actual physical actions?

ANDREW HASTIE: Good evening, Sarah. Yes, over the last 10 years, I think with the rise of social media, we've seen people whipped up into an emotional state by what they see or read online, and I think people at the margins who are unstable are potentially inspired to take action. We don't know about the reasons behind this attack on Helen Haines, but certainly my concern is with the industrial scale of social media. Potentially, there are more people being reached with very emotive, negative messages, which could inspire action. In my own case, I didn't seek any security upgrades. The Minister for Home Affairs approached me about that and said that I had been identified, and it was over the last six months, particularly, that I've come under sustained abuse online. I don't stay online – I hand that off to my staff. It's better for my mental health, frankly. But it is an issue, and my concern is people being whipped up into a frenzy, and people at the margins who we can't track, who show no signs of being a potential threat, end up taking action. Because it's very easy to weaponise a car, a kitchen knife, a cricket bat, or anything else to take action against a public official.

SARAH FERGUSON: So, these are obviously the extreme cases that both of you and your colleagues have to contemplate. But when you think about the industrial scale that you're referring to, where is that anger coming from? We've heard the security agencies talk about it for some time. Do you understand what is happening in the discourse?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Well, I think some of it is the lack of civility that's crept into our debate, the lack of ability to have-you can have fierce arguments. You can disagree with someone quite profoundly. You don't have to be abusive or belittling. You don't have to use violent language. I think some of it is also driven, frankly, by the way social media operates. We know that algorithms reward outrage. The profits are there to be made by keeping people on the boil, and so I think all of us have a responsibility to do better. I mean, one of my colleagues had her home address identified in the Senate. A major newspaper then published the identification of her home, and then it was broadcast again on social media. So, politicians have a responsibility. Mainstream media has responsibility. Social media should be better. All of us can do something there. The thing that we shouldn't be doing is rewarding social media for driving this outrage. With higher and higher profits, because that's their business model.

SARAH FERGUSON: That obviously takes us to the discussion that's going on in Australia at the moment about the limits of free speech and where social media interacts with that. Andrew Hastie, how do you draw a line? Where do you draw it? Do you understand how to draw a line in the debates that you are involved in?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, the thing I've called for today is for every Australian who is a steward of our democracy to think hard about how they can be better stewards and custodians. The reason why we've had successful democracy in this country for 125 years is because we have negotiated, debated, and compromised on the biggest questions in public life. Violence is the biggest threat to our functioning democracy. It corrodes trust. It corrodes the trust that's essential between those who are elected in the Parliament and the people they represent. And so, there's a bigger discussion to be had about why this happened, what we can do about it, how we can better secure MPs and senators. But I think fundamentally, the question that I ask myself is: How can I be better? How can I be more civil in the way that I engage? How can I model that to my constituents and more broadly to the Australian people? And I think those who are elected have a special obligation to model civil debate, and that means you don't demonise your opponents, you don't attack their reputation or their standing; you debate the issues, and that's what we need to see more of.

SARAH FERGUSON: But there are people on your side of politics who have a view that controlling social media is not something that we should be pursuing. That social media should be allowed to let rip. It should be a free-speech space. Is that an unrealistic proposition in this day and age, with the way algorithms currently behave?

ANDREW HASTIE: I'm no fan of big tech – I want to make that very clear. But with trust at an all-time low with the Australian people and politics and politicians, I think it's really essential that they can express themselves. There are boundaries to speech, of course there are. Some of it is offensive, some of it I disagree with, but when it verges on ugly, divisive rhetoric that can inspire violence, I think a line has to be drawn. How we do that, is another question, and that's a debate that we'll have.

SARAH FERGUSON: I'm just going to hold this debate for one second, just to update the audience on a piece of news, which is that Brendan Nugent has been charged over the attack on Helen Haines. The charges are dangerous driving, causing serious injury, intentionally causing serious injury, and the Commonwealth offense of causing harm to a Commonwealth public official. He is expected to face the Wangaratta Magistrates Court tomorrow. That is not unexpected after what we had understood over the last 24 hours. Just coming back to this idea of social media, you're talking about the fact that algorithms obviously like and support the most extreme language that people use or divisive language and content. Obviously, the government is making an argument about people getting control of their algorithms. Does this now form an important part of that debate next week?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Look, I think all these are discussions for another day. We are absolutely 100 per cent focused on Helen today, and her family, and her staff, her volunteers, her community are so devastated by this. I'm not going to get into a political argument about this. What I want to say, Sarah, is as parliamentarians, I think Andrew and I would agree – we want to be in our communities. We want to be available to talk to people at the supermarket and at street stalls on a Saturday and the sidelines of kids' sport. That is the strength of our democracy. People come here from overseas and they can't believe that we're not driving around in armoured cars with security guards like you see politicians in so many countries required to do. If we want to protect what is precious about our democracy, then we need to learn to disagree respectfully with one another.

SARAH FERGUSON: Now, the issue, of course, here is that both of you have families who do not always choose to be part of the political world that you're both in. Andrew Hastie, it's a complicated issue. You come into politics with your own ideas, ideals, and ambitions. But does this event change the way you think about also, in a sense, bringing your family into this world?

ANDREW HASTIE: It does complicate it. My wife and my kids have been in the public eye since I was elected to office. My wife, Ruth, essentially has veto over my political career. We're a team, and if she finds it too much, well, then I'll go and do something else. But she supports me fully in this, and we do it as a family. So, we think these things through as a family, as tough as it is for my children – I've had a death threat against my children made almost eight years ago now, so this is nothing new – these are the things that we seriously consider. But I think – and I think Tanya would agree – we want people of talent coming into our Parliament, that's why we've got to get this right. Otherwise, our country is poorer because without the best people serving in our Parliament, we won't get the best public policy outcomes for our nation. That's why getting this right is so important.

SARAH FERGUSON: I just want to ask you about that too, Tanya Plibersek, because it was one of the consequences of the event in the UK that we're going to go on to discuss later in the program. The Speaker of the UK Parliament has said that there is a real effect in UK politics, preventing talented people from coming into politics there. Are you concerned that we're going to see the same thing here?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Oh, for sure. And I know that it's already having a chilling effect on people who are making these decisions, and certainly newer members of Parliament who've been around for one term or two terms, I think are shocked by the level of violence that is directed, or threats of violence, that are directed towards them. I 100 per cent agree with Andrew - unless we deal better with this, really good people who would make a wonderful contribution to our democracy will not take up the challenge.

SARAH FERGUSON: On a point of agreement, I thank you both, Andrew Hastie, Tanya Plibersek, very much indeed for joining us.

[ENDS]