THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY
FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH PATRICIA KARVELAS, AFTERNOON BRIEFING

Monday 19 October 2026

Topics: EU free trade agreement; Jacqui Lambie; One Nation; Ukraine; Jordan Steele-John; Josh Frydenberg.

E&OE……………………………………

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I want to bring in Andrew Hastie, Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability. Welcome to the program.

ANDREW HASTIE: Good afternoon, PK.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: We're going to start, if we can, on the free trade agreement with the EU. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Chief Executive Andrew McKellar says the business sector really supports the deal and is directly appealing to your side of politics to support it. Is your position on this deal's ratification settled?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, we're opposing the deal at present. We haven't seen the legislation yet, and the timeline is important. This EU deal has to be translated into 24 other languages before it goes to the EU Council for consideration. It's then got to come to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties next year, which could be as late as March of next year. So, at the moment, we are opposed to it because we think it's a bad deal for Australia, but let's see what happens. In the end, there's a process to go through, so we've got some time on our side here.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. So, you say there is some room, but the government said it can't be renegotiated.

ANDREW HASTIE: As it stands, we oppose the deal for a number of reasons. We don't think it increases access for our primary producers. We think it will introduce unfair advantages to Europeans over our primary producers. And it also binds us to Paris in a way we've never been bound before, whereby we could suffer consequences as a country if we're in breach of the Paris Agreement. That attacks our sovereignty and I think our energy security, and they're the reasons why we're opposed to it.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The Nationals' leader, Matt Canavan, has of course said his party won't back the agreement so the Nationals are pretty steadfast. But several Liberals have said, and I've spoken to people, that it does actually improve the current trade settings. Doesn't that show that inside the Liberal Party, there's not just one view?

ANDREW HASTIE: People are entitled to their view, and as I said, there's a significant amount of time from now until when this is ultimately settled. We're going to stay engaged through the process, but at present, we are opposed to the Bill. I'm particularly opposed to it because of the energy implications. Paris is a toothless tiger as it stands now, whereas this EU FTA will give Paris teeth, and I think that will undermine our sovereignty and also our energy security as a country. What we want to do is get power bills down for families, for businesses, for heavy industry. We want this country to be cost competitive again. We don't want to be subject to rules out of the EU on climate. Fundamentally, that's my issue.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: The government wants to peel off some free trade Liberals. Obviously, the Liberal Party historically has been very much a free trade party. Do you think some would cross the floor?

ANDREW HASTIE: Free trade only works when it works in the interest of Australia. Our view right now is that this deal does not work in Australia's national interest – that's fundamentally the point.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Are you still a free trade party?

ANDREW HASTIE: We are, absolutely. Free trade is not some abstract thing – it's two parties coming to the table and working out a deal that works for both. And at the moment, the deal works in favour of the EU, not Australia. And let's remember as well, it was three years ago the Labor government walked away from this EU FTA. Not a lot has changed since then, but they've signed back up to it. We don't think it works for our primary producers, and they're people we represent, particularly our dairy farmers, our beef farmers – this potentially removes a tariff on European cheeses, which will weaken our primary producers. It also potentially introduces a 50 per cent tariff on Australian steel. So, this is not in our national interest as it stands now.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I want to change the topic. A big topic of conversation today has been Jacqui Lambie's condemnation of that One Nation cartoon mocking her health struggle with her vaginal prolapse. You were mocked in an earlier cartoon, as you well know, because you called it out. Now Pauline Hanson has said that Senator Lambie should just have a laugh, and she should get over it. Should she?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think that shows Pauline Hanson's hypocrisy. She cried a river for Gina Rinehart when the ABC had a satirical skit played on one of your programs and demanded that it be taken down. Yet she's shown herself to be a lickspittle now for Gina Rinehart because she's just waving off Jacqui Lambie as satirical. The double standard is ridiculous. It's a cheap, nasty, and vulgar attack on Jacqui Lambie's health condition. And if she had any decency, she'd apologise and pull it down. What it really reveals, though, is the character of One Nation-cheap, nasty, vulgar, MAGA-style tactics attacking people's character, health conditions, whatever. My question for people is: What happens when One Nation potentially wins government? Will they be using taxpayer funds to roll out these cartoons attacking their political opponents? You played an excerpt from the cartoonist earlier – he's the same person who called for Dan Andrews and Jacinta Allen to be put in jail by Christmas. I mean, this is the sort of character we're seeing from these people.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, that's the question about institutions, rule of law was raised by that comment, you're right, at I think it was the launch for One Nation in Victoria. There is an election coming up in Victoria, so he's talking in that context. I mean, I suppose One Nation's point is – I'm not arguing their point, but putting it to you, just to be clear – that they're just having a laugh, they're satirising, that we're all basically a little on the weak side, not being able to laugh at jokes. Do they have a point? Are we humourless?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I'm all for a joke. I enjoy humour. But when you're attacking someone's character or health condition, that's different. And like I said, Pauline Hanson has shown her hypocrisy. She'll cry a river for Gina Rinehart, she'll show herself to be a lickspittle with Gina Rinehart. But when it comes to Jacqui Lambie, she doubles down and claims it's satire and I just think it's unacceptable. I want women across Australia to see what One Nation really is like. It's a health condition for a lot of Australian women, and it's apparently a punchline for Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: It is actually a health condition that's really horrendous for so many women, and I'm sure some women actually watching might actually experience it and know that, so I think that's a point. One more point on this, though. I mean, there's a particular angle here, which is that Jacqui Lambie says this is actually something that happened as a result of being in Defence. She was very supportive of you and angry and calling out One Nation, you'll recall, when you were called a traitor – which you clearly are not – and was pretty you know full on there. So, obviously they're taking her on, it seems, as a consequence of perhaps her very strong language. Is that what this is?

ANDREW HASTIE: In the end, Jacqui Lambie defended me, and I appreciated that. I called her a good woman, and I'm grateful for the way she did that. She's colourful. She's a very effective communicator. She's very passionate. Nonetheless, this is One Nation making a punchline of her health condition, which is also suffered by many women across this country. I think it's unacceptable, it's vulgar, it's cheap, it's nasty.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson, obviously your colleague, says these Please Explain cartoons would actually be removed under Labor's proposed Digital Duty of Care laws. She says it would constitute political censorship. I just spoke to Matt Thistlethwaite. He says no, they wouldn't be removed, that's not the point of the laws.

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, they might be removed if the Minister decided that they constituted online harm with the sort of 1984 Big Brother clause in the Bill. I don't want them removed by the government. I want people to see them because it reveals the true character of One Nation. That's what I want people to see because in 18 months' time they're going to have a choice. And if they want more of this MAGA-style nasty politics, well, this is what you're going to get with One Nation and potentially funded by their own taxes if they win government. So, I don't want to see it censored. We have massive issues with this Digital Duty of Care Bill. We think it's overreach. We think it's censorship. Australians should be able to express their minds. Even when we don't agree, and even when we might find it offensive - that's not a reason to censor people.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Look, there's some news out this afternoon. Former Labor attorney general and federal court judge Robert McClelland has been named as the new boss of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. He's had other roles since. Does the Coalition support this appointment?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, Robert McClelland – I don't know anything about him. I see his portrait regularly in Parliament on the wall there. I understand he's got an esteemed legal career. He was our nation's attorney general. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, frankly. But we need a new commissioner, and let's see what happens.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yep. Fair enough. Just finally, something I've been watching, and that's obviously Ukraine – you've had a lot to say about our support for Ukraine in the past. But also, this Starlink and the implications for us, perhaps, of the way Elon Musk has reduced their ability to use Starlink. Specifically, our defence, our sovereignty – if a tech boss as powerful and as overwhelmingly rich as Elon Musk can just cut the cable on something so critical, what does it mean for our preparedness?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think it's a huge wake-up call for Australia. Warfare has changed so much in the last decade, but particularly in the last five years. We're seeing more cyber integrated into warfare, we're seeing more AI, more space technology. And the lesson I think out of this is: if you don't have some level of sovereign capability, you're dependent upon another power and if that power doesn't share your same interests in the event of a war, then potentially you find yourself cut off from technology. So, I think it's a reminder that we absolutely need sovereign AI in this country, and we need to build resilience not just into our Defence system, but also into our economy as well given, at the moment, we're dependent on the United States for a lot of our technology via submarine cables that terminate in the United States. If those submarine cables were cut. Guess what? A lot of our capability would be cut too.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Canada is apparently trying to wean itself off reliance on Starlink. Should we be doing something similar?

ANDREW HASTIE: That's a massive project. The reason why Starlink is so important is because it delivered internet communications for Ukraine when they were under massive cyber-attack from Russia at the start of the war, and it's been a really important part of their campaign over the last four years. So, Starlink isn't going away any time soon. The question is: how do we best leverage our alliance relationships and make sure that this could never happen to us? So, it's a bit of building our own sovereign capability where we can, and it's also making sure that we have plenty of leverage in our relationships with countries like the United States because guess what? President Trump is someone who drives a very hard bargain, and the best way to work with Donald Trump, I think, as a country, is to have plenty of leverage with him.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Just a couple of other political questions, if you don't mind indulging me, that I'm interested in your thoughts on. Just a fellow West Australian – I think that's why I'm asking you, you're both from the same part of the country. Greens Senator Jordan Steele John says he isn't on leave. Of course, the party is has launched an independent investigation. He says he's not on leave, he's contradicted his leader, David Shoebridge, who says he understands he should be on leave. Should he be on leave? When things like this emerge – even if you argue you are innocent, which is what he's telling us – should you step back and be on leave while an investigation happens?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think the normal procedure is that you step aside from your role, and you allow a process to take place, which hopefully vindicates you. That would be my understanding. I don't know the ins and outs of the conversation within the Greens at the moment, but these are very serious allegations against the Senator, and I think it's fair that he is asked to be stepped aside for the time being, or on leave, whilst this process can be completed.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I have to ask you because I haven't got to. Josh Frydenberg's on his book tour. He's dancing with the idea of coming back to the Parliament. Clearly, I don't think he wants to be a backbencher – that's just my own commentary there. No confirmation, but I just reckon if you've been a treasurer, you might have some ambitions. Do you want him to run again and get his way back into the parliament for the Liberal Party?

ANDREW HASTIE: I would welcome Josh's return. I think he's got a great profile. He's obviously a very effective parliamentarian with a lot of experience. That's a decision for Josh and for his wife Amy and for their larger family as well, I imagine. It's a big call to come back to Parliament. I've read excerpts of his memoir – looks like an interesting book. But Parliament has moved on significantly in the last four and a half to five years – it's a very different landscape with a lot of challenges, a lot of complexity. And at the moment, we are focused on delivering a plan for the Australian people that deals with the cost-of-living crisis, that delivers lower taxes, cheaper power, reduced immigration, more homes, and we want to build a stronger nation, stronger Australia. That's our focus at the moment.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: You are right. Things have changed a lot since the election, where he lost his seat. What's the message in that that you're saying? Like the landscape's changed, right?

ANDREW HASTIE: The landscape has changed. Tim Wilson, the Member for Goldstein – colleague and our Shadow Treasurer – he defeated a Teal just over 18 months ago. But I don't think anyone's talking about the Teals right now, people are talking about One Nation and what it means for the centre right. And I think the overwhelming strategic challenge for the Liberal Party and the National Party going forward is: how do we form government outright in the next 18 months? We've got to win more than 30 seats. It's a huge task. We've got to develop a new policy platform, which we're doing under Angus Taylor. Reflecting on the past is useful, but we've got to have a plan for the future, and that's where our eyes are set.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Andrew Hastie, always good to have you on the show. Thank you.

ANDREW HASTIE: Thanks, PK.

[ENDS]