Andrew Hastie’s rise isn’t just a political misfire — it’s a full-blown ideological bushfire, fanned by Abbott’s legacy and now publicly condemned by the mother of Australia’s most disgraced war hero.

---

Thelma & Louise in Khaki: Abbott and Hastie’s Joyride Through the Wreckage of Australian Conservatism

If Australian politics were a buddy movie, former Minister for Women, Tony Abbott and his side-kick Andrew Hastie would be Thelma and Louise; minus the feminism, plus a few medals, and driving a ute packed with culture war pamphlets, remaindered copies of Tony’s latest book: Australia: White Man’s Triumph, necking a shared bottle of Penfold’s Grange straight off the edge of ideological relevance.

Abbott, the Incredible Sulk of post-Howard conservatism, never met a uniform he didn’t want to iron. His obsession with strength, masculinity, and moral absolutism turned the Liberal Party from a centre-right coalition into a cosplay convention for Cold War nostalgics. A refuge for scoundrels like ScoMo. And in Andrew Hastie, he’s found his perfect passenger: a sandgroper with a steely gaze, a Shakespeare quote for every occasion, and the political subtlety of a boot camp sergeant teaching ethics.

Hastie wasn’t just Abbott’s protégé; he was his ideological stunt double. Plucked from the SAS and dropped into Canning like a tactical insertion, Hastie arrived with medals, muscles, and a moral compass calibrated to 1952. Abbott didn’t just endorse Handy Andy he practically bench-pressed him into Parliament.

But here’s the problem: Hastie is totally unsuited to politics. Not because he’s unintelligent; he’s articulate, disciplined, and ideologically coherent. But because he’s a sandgroper in every sense: parochial, rigid, and allergic to the messy pluralism that defines modern Australia. His worldview is built for command, not compromise. For orders, not dialogue. For enemies, not constituents.

And now, in a party that’s less a coalition and more a controlled demolition site, Hastie is being floated as a potential leader. It’s like asking the fire to become the fire brigade.

The Liberal Party doesn’t need a warrior. It needs a mechanic, a therapist, and even a priest. Someone to fix the leaks, soothe the trauma, and perform last rites over the corpse of policy. Instead, they’re flirting with a man who thinks national security is a personality trait and nuance is for traitors.

Hastie’s rise is a symptom of a deeper illness: the belief that strength equals virtue, and that uniforms can substitute for ideas. He’s not just the wrong answer; he’s the wrong genre. The wrong genus. A former SAS soldier in a policy vacuum. A sandgroper in a national conversation. A man who looks the part in a party that’s forgotten what the part is supposed to be.

And now, the warning sirens are blaring; not from the left, but from within the bosom of the military family itself. In a move that reads like a Shakespearean sub-plot, Sue Roberts-Smith, mother of disgraced war hero Ben Roberts-Smith, tenderly pens a 49-page letter to every Coalition MP, urging them to steer clear of Hastie. Her accusations aren’t vague. She calls him “not fit to lead the Liberal Party”, citing his role in her son’s downfall and painting him as a man driven more by ambition than integrity.

It’s a remarkable moment: the mother of a fallen icon publicly denouncing the man who once admired her son, then helped dismantle his reputation. It adds a layer of comic-operatic tragedy to Hastie’s ascent — a reminder that behind the medals and mythos lies a trail of broken allegiances, courtroom drama, and political opportunism.

So yes, Abbott and Hastie are our Thelma and Louise; two men in tight formation, speeding toward the cliff with the Toyota LandCruiser’s windows down and the radio tuned to Peta Credlin’s show on Sky News. The only question now is whether the rest of the party will follow them over the edge, or finally realise that leadership requires more than a jawline, a hair of the dog and a war story.

---

Coda

Susan Ley, ever the loyal understudy in the Liberal Party’s long-running production of “Men Who Know Best”, issues a statement praising Hastie’s “unwavering commitment to national values”; a phrase so handy it could apply to a lamington recipe, GlenThompson bricks, or the giant koala at Dadswell’s Bridge. She assures voters that “Andrew understands the sacrifices of service,” while carefully sidestepping the question of whether those sacrifices include throwing former comrades under the judicial bus.

The Australian War Memorial, meanwhile, announces a new exhibit titled “Leadership Under Fire: From Gallipoli to Canning”, featuring a wax figure of Hastie staring into the middle distance beside a looping video of Abbott doing push-ups. Critics decry the absence of nuance, context, or actual policy; but are reassured by the gift shop’s new “Command Not Compromise” fridge magnets.

And The Australian, true to form, runs a front-page editorial titled “Hastie: The Man Australia Needs”, followed by 1,200 words of rhetorical chin-ups. The piece praises Hattie’s “moral clarity,” “strategic vision,” and “ability to wear a suit like it’s body armour,” while dismissing Sue Roberts-Smith’s letter as “emotional noise from the sidelines.” In the comments section, readers debate whether Hastie should lead the party, the army, or a new breakaway nation called “Real Australia.”