THE HON ANDREW HASTIE MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY
FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CANNING

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH TOM CONNELL, SKY NEWS

Thursday 5 March 2026

Topics: Iran conflict; fuel stocks; Australian manufacturing capability; Farrer byelection.

E&OE……………………………………

TOM CONNELL: Joining me now is Shadow Industry and Sovereign Capability Minister Andrew Hastie who knows a little bit about these things to do with war, so thank you for your time first of all. The fact that Iran is going to appoint a new leader, look, no surprise, but does it sort of go to the fact there seems to be all these plans for air strikes and a call for a new regime, but not much of a plan for one?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think it's going to be really challenging to do regime change with air power alone. World War Two is a classic case where you saw Germany hold out right until Russians were surrounding the Reich Chancellery and Japan held out until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So to just use air power alone and expect a result, I think is wishful thinking. I think also the regime is fairly resilient, and a lot of the people who want to resist the regime are unarmed, so it's a real challenge. And I think the IRGC and what they do next is going to be really important.

TOM CONNELL: So what would actually create proper conditions, do you think, for a regime change? What are you hoping happens?

ANDREW HASTIE: I think you need an armed populace who could rise up against the government. I think if you're going to bet on any country in the region being able to have a successful uprising, it would be Iran with 90 million people, a highly educated middle class – very different to Iraq, very different to Afghanistan. But still, this regime has been functioning for several decades – four decades now – and I imagine it's quite resilient, so let's see what happens but you can't just change regimes on air power alone. Gaddafi was taken out in 2011 using air power but look what rose up in his place. So there's no guarantee that whoever comes next is going to be much better than the Ayatollah and his team.

TOM CONNELL: Does it call into question whether this is all worth it?

ANDREW HASTIE: Look, I didn't get a choice in the matter. I'm going to suspend judgment for now. But it's very clear, once the war started, I'm very much with the United States, Israel and the Gulf states, who are also defending their countries against Iran, who sponsored terrorism, sponsored Hamas, the Houthis. It's seeking a nuclear weapon. It's murdered its own people. This is a very bad regime.

TOM CONNELL: Australia is deploying, in the words of Anthony Albanese, military assets. Now I'm assuming these are planes to help get people out. What do you make of this approach? Obviously, there'll be people – if you can get a plane, and you're in Dubai – get a plane, the airspace is open, but I guess there'll be people in some pretty tricky situations over there. Should we be doing everything we can?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yeah, a lot of Australians over there, more than 100,000. That's a lot of people to airlift, commercially, as well as militarily and we only have limited amount of air assets – C-17s, C-130s – that could do that. So it's going to be a tough job, and then you've got to work out who you bring home first, if you do. Then there's the additional operational risk of – while there's still missiles flying around the region – getting a plane in and out safely is also a challenge.

TOM CONNELL: So it should be done only when it's really needed, essentially?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yeah, and the Defence Force is going to have to make that risk assessment, but it's up to the government to communicate to the Australian people and those Australians in the region who want to get out. We need a plan. We don't have one, and so the absence of information is not helping the situation.

TOM CONNELL: The fuel shortage. Now the Coalition – I was looking at the stats on this – did increase the physical fuel amount, but a lot of people would say not enough. I know you're a big proponent of this, and a big part of our so-called supplies are in the U.S., so they're ours, but they're over in America. Is this an issue that we should have gone further on?

ANDREW HASTIE: Australia is almost entirely reliant upon the importation of liquid fuel, so we're at the mercy of what happens on the oceans around us. Most of our liquid fuel comes from North Asia, through Singapore, and my view is that we should have some sovereign refining capacity. We're down to two refineries, and that's not very much. We saw Kwinana on the west coast close, and the challenge is the economics of refining in this country. But if we want to be self-sufficient, we do have to have a conversation about fuel.

TOM CONNELL: Would that be the next conversation? You would say, subsidise refineries, have a certain number, have a wholistic look at it, and just be willing to spend the money?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, when it comes to strategic industries, my view is: markets where possible, governments, where necessary. And there's some things that markets –

TOM CONNELL: I mean, hasn't the market spoken on this?

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, we've got about mid-30s in terms of days of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel. If our supply lines were to be cut, we'd end up like we were in 1940 where we went to pretty hard rationing straight away. It means all those trucks that run on diesel, that deliver pharmaceuticals, groceries would suddenly stop. And our whole exports industry, which pretty much runs on diesel – if you go up to the northwest of Australia, look at Port Headland and the iron ore industry – would stop functioning as well. So huge risk for our economy. Huge risk for our services, and that's why we've got to think about these things. The International Energy Agency mandates 90 days.

TOM CONNELL: Which we get around, right by saying, it's over there, it's in the U.S.?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yeah, and they say: “oh, it's floating out on the ocean.” Well, great, but we should have greater resilience in our liquid fuel stocks.

TOM CONNELL: That might be a conversation that gets more impetus, we'll see. Interesting moment as well for the Canadian Prime Minister to be here and he's spoken of realpolitik in the Trump era that, you know, wish for what you want, here we are. He spoke today about an alliance-like relationship. Is that a good thing to aim for with Canada, for Australia?

ANDREW HASTIE: Yes. We already have one through Five Eyes. We already have –

TOM CONNELL: But formalise that? Make that more direct?

ANDREW HASTIE: I'm all for meaningful bilateral relationships with likeminded partners who share our values and also assess the world like we do. Mark Carney in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum in January made it very clear that the rules-based global order is dead, and we need to start thinking about how we can work together to mitigate the risks of a world where the strong do what they want.

TOM CONNELL: Can we do that, do you think, without getting on the Trump radar in a bad way? He's had some interesting moments, hasn't he, Mark Carney, with Donald Trump.

ANDREW HASTIE: He has, but I mean, you'd expect that. Both sides of Canadian politics has had rough challenges with Donald Trump, because Donald Trump is America first. And if all these big superpowers like China, America and Russia and others are all doing their own version of America or China or Russia first, well, then what do we do? And I think the lesson is that there are risks in relying upon supply chains that you don't control so you've got to work out what strategic industries you can onshore, or you can friend-shore, and then build partnerships to make sure that your resilience in a crisis.

TOM CONNELL: Critical minerals and stuff like that.

ANDREW HASTIE: Exactly.

TOM CONNELL: Now, you famously, infamously – whatever you want to use – bemoan that we don't make Ford Falcon anymore but you also said you're not looking to the past. Have you turned your mind yet to what we can make? Is it specifically, or is this about broad conditions in place and see what happens?

ANDREW HASTIE: I'm not focused on end product, I'm focused on building an advanced manufacturing capability for our country. What does that mean? It means that Australian manufacturers can design, produce and scale high-tech, high-value goods using cutting edge processes, a skilled workforce and integrated supply chains. That'll make the economy look like a Swiss Army Knife rather than a butter knife, and it means that we'll have more complexity, more resilience in our workforce. Advanced manufacturing also drives productivity which means real wages go up, which for working Australians, they haven't had a break for half a decade now, and that's why I think recovering advanced manufacturing can drive our country forward.

TOM CONNELL: Will that cost that front? Because it's a competitive area, right? It's almost like movie making these days.

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, that's true, we're not cost competitive, certainly not in heavy industry, not in advanced manufacturing. And the reason is that for Labor, energy policy and industry policy are both focused on the same single objective, and that is decarbonisation and reaching Net Zero. And so when you look over the forwards, Labor is going to spend up to about $90 billion on the Capacity Investment Scheme, building out a renewables grid that goes to 82 per cent renewables by 2030, and then another $22 billion in the Future Made in Australia, which is actually future made overseas, because it's reliant upon the importation of renewables from places like China for it to get off the ground. So –

TOM CONNELL: The infrastructure of the renewables from China do you mean?

ANDREW HASTIE: If I can finish, If you look at the National Interest Framework paper put out by Treasury in 2024, it says explicitly that the industrial policy from Labor is dependent upon the grid being built out into a renewables grid using Chinese wind, solar and so forth, so –

TOM CONNELL: We've got a plan to make some panels, but not all of them. I wasn't I wasn't disagreeing; I was just verifying what you meant there. We've got to go in a minute. I've got so much more on the list, but anyway, I got stuck on other stuff. Let me ask you this, though, what's a pass mark in Farrer? New leadership, united team. You've got to hold on to that seat, don't you?

ANDREW HASTIE: There's a couple of factors. Sussan Ley was rightly a very popular incumbent. She's held the seat for 25 years, so it's going to be hard to replace her with a candidate with the same star power. Secondly, the new donation reforms come in on July 1, and so this is going to be a big spending by election. You're going to have One Nation putting a bunch of money in, potentially Labor Teals, independents, us. So who knows which way it's going to go. And so, I think a pass mark for us is to get our primary vote up. Our primary vote has been under 20, according to the last several polls, and I think getting our primary vote into –

TOM CONNELL: But that's nationally. What are you saying, her primary vote to increase or above 20?

ANDREW HASTIE: It's going to be a tough election. I think it's going to be a very tough election. Byelections are always tough, regardless of whether you're the government or the opposition –

TOM CONNELL: So the swing against the Coalition at the moment is about 10. You want to have a smaller swing than 10? I don't want to try to construe what you're saying here.

ANDREW HASTIE: Well, if you just look at the national polling, our primary vote is down, and that's my starting premise. We've got to improve our primary vote.

TOM CONNELL: So a better swing than the 10 per cent against you on the polling at the moment?

ANDREW HASTIE: Exactly right.

TOM CONNELL: Alright. Andrew Hastie, appreciate your time today. Thank you.

ANDREW HASTIE: Thanks, Tom.

[ENDS]