Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Andrew Hastie’s defence of a controversial parliamentary vote sparks fierce backlash, with critics accusing him of moral compromise, political cowardice, and turning his fire on faithful Christians instead of progressive overreach.

Andrew Hastie MP just posted a screenshot of his social media reply to some criticism, which makes it very hard to believe he’s on the side of authentic Christians, conservatives or common sense.

I’ve watched, bemused, as conservatives and couch commentators have been trumpeting the triumphs of Andrew Hastie’s parliamentary leadership since the last election. There’s no doubt that if he led the Liberal Party in Australia like he led troops on the battlefield, the Liberal Party wouldn’t be plummeting in relevance, and I wouldn’t be writing this article. Yet leadership isn’t a position; it’s a habit.

There’s little evidence of Hastie’s political courage, despite having been elected more than a decade ago, in September 2015. Indeed, it’s hardly debatable that Hastie has been “playing the long game”, a euphemism for not being willing to speak out or stand up, but rather to be a good little soldier for the betterment of one’s political career.

The “Long Game” That Looks Like Silence

“Long gamers” rationalise that strategy by arguing they can’t have a positive influence if they have no influence. They can’t fight for their values if they get relegated to the backbenches to serve out their terms without voice or influence. It sounds credible — but it’s not.

Wasting ten years of opportunities to speak up and lead is incredible.

During the same time as Andrew Hastie failed to make a name for himself as an “outspoken” representative of common sense and liberty, far more courageous coalition MPs like George Christensen, Cory Bernardi, Eric Abetz, Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic and Jacinta Price distinguished their service with fearless anti-moderate campaigns.

Has he been in front of cameras and top of headlines defending common sense conservatism on such a regular basis that he’s known as one of those brave few? Would those names who either left the Coalition or lost preselections might have lasted longer if quiet conservatives weren’t so demure?

I’m not saying he’s never stood up, but he’s certainly kept his head down — playing “the long game” — while true political leaders have charged the enemy lines.

I first had a serious crack at him during the last federal election when he explained why women don’t belong in front-line combat roles, and then said he wasn’t saying that women don’t belong in front-line combat roles when pressed by a journalist.

I wrote that article because Hastie had disappointingly illustrated an observation I’d made just one day prior:

“To position oneself for leadership of the Liberal Party, one must distance oneself from Christ, conservatives, convictions, courage and common sense. Lukewarm compromise is believed to be the career path to Prime Minister.”

A Defining Vote — And a Deflating Defence

And boy oh boy, doesn’t he just love proving me right! His vote for Labor’s slightly less appalling hate speech legislation after promising not to, and subsequent tin-eared defensiveness was bad enough, but he’s now positioning himself as anti-Christian.

Today, Hastie has finally become an outspoken critic, not of the “moderates” in his party who hate marriage, real women, babies and free speech, but of Christians who criticise his worthless word and convictionless compromise.

He replied to one Christian social media poster with the following diatribe:

“@charliebakhos mate, I have never seen so many Christians so rattled online over a single vote of the Parliament—a vote where we actually got the best possible outcome in the circumstances. Did I want to vote for the Bill? No, I did not. But did I want the unamended Bill (which would have impinged on religious freedom) to pass with the help of the Greens? No, I did not. I chose to vote for the lesser evil of a watered-down bill, which was the price of negotiating with Labor to deny a much worse outcome.

The reaction from some quarters reminds me why people are leaving the church in droves. People see a faithless, joyless and judgmental institution rather than one that carries the hope of Christ. Our persecuted brothers and sisters are suffering overseas — even dying for the faith — and we are fighting pathetic online battles, stoked by influencers who have a financial stake in our division.

This is my last comment to you. I wish you well, brother.”

“A single vote of Parliament” profaned the holy covenant of marriage and made classical Christian doctrine borderline dangerous in law.

“A single vote of Parliament” legalised killing preborn living humans for any reason and at any stage of development with the approval of only two abortionists in Queensland (and many other states).

Hastie’s minimisation of the singular power of legislation to destroy lives, families, and nations is wilfully ignorant.

He also deceives himself if he thinks Labor’s “hate speech” legislation in any form was “the best possible outcome”. Courageous leadership would’ve refused to support any and all “hate speech” legislation, forcing Albanese to choose between dropping it altogether or making a terrible deal with the Greens, which in turn would have gifted the Coalition with a much easier election campaign seeking a mandate to entirely repeal the tyranny. (But that assumes a Coalition government would have the campaign courage to take the battle to the enemy, which on available evidence, is admittedly generous.)

Hastie’s rationalisation of his surrender to Albanese is entirely uninspired and unimaginative, unlike the political audacity of the great statesmen of history like Wilberforce, who once said, “We are too young to realise that certain things are impossible… So we will do them anyway.”

Turning on the Faithful Instead of the Faithless

Hastie’s alarmingly dark turn in commentary assumes a false premise, that “people are leaving the Church in droves”. They really aren’t. They’re leaving weak, liberal, feminised, woke denominations in droves. But there’s certainly a quiet revival driven by the voices that preach God’s Truth without quivering, and teach God’s unvarnished Word without apology.

Charlie Kirk’s voice and subsequent martyrdom only accelerated the revival, especially amongst Gen Z men, because people are looking for courageous moral leadership, not rationalised “lesser of two evils” or word-smithed “advancing to the rear”.

Indeed, Hastie himself wrote in 2020 that he admired a particular padre because, “He was refreshingly confrontational, not a social worker in uniform.”

This article, and many of the better comments condemning Hastie’s about-face is what that looks like in politics.

Hastie accused us of being “faithless”. In most Liberal politicians, certainly, but faithful that it is God Who gives us career success and frustrates our enemies’ plans.

He accused the Church of being “joyless”, which probably means he’s attending the wrong congregation on Sunday mornings and reading too much into righteous responses to supporters of wicked laws on weekdays.

He observes that the Church is a judgmental institution rather than one that carries the hope of Christ. It is hope in Christ that sustains us for the fight against injustices and equips us to judge right from wrong. If this is novel to Hastie, I pity his Christian experience.

I observe that Hastie grants himself the licence he forbids us having, to himself be “faithless, joyless and judgemental” rather than carrying “the hope of Christ”. Nothing in his vote for Labor’s “hate speech” legislation or self-justification afterwards has been otherwise!

Hastie dares invoke the blood of martyrs, “Our persecuted brothers and sisters are suffering overseas — even dying for the faith”, to defend his part in catapulting Australia further towards such tyranny!

Can you believe the audacity of a man who votes for “hate speech” laws, to then admonish appropriately concerned Christians to remember the persecuted Church?

Andrew Hastie, sir, have you been hiding under a rock since the Turnbull government YOU were a part of promised and failed to deliver actually effective protection of religious freedom in the wake of YOUR party’s abominable undefinition of holy marriage?

Do you recall how we were sold that bill of goods with the promise that it was also the lesser of two evils?

Courage, Conviction, and a Chance to Repent

Hastie concludes his hasty diatribe by taking aim at unnamed “influencers” by labelling their commentary “pathetic online battles”, and accusing them of financial motivations, as if there was nothing to see here, nothing to be concerned about or condemn, nothing to worry about in chronically pathetic Liberal Party politics.

Such consistently dismissive condescension and rank hypocrisy is a betrayal of the very people he should be listening to and representing. Like Albanese, Hastie is demanding “unity” with corrupt policy. That’s actually the best reason for clear division, hence my title. Like it or not, there are clear sides, and he’s not clearly on ours.

But here’s my conclusion.

It’s never too late to repent. Tomorrow is a new day, and an opportunity for Hastie (and all other “long-gamers”) to become what the Lying Harlot Media and Coalition Moderates will label outspoken and maverick.

If capable of self-reflection and humility, Hastie would read commentary like this and receive it in the spirit it’s given: of utter devotion to Truth and righteousness at any cost, not for personal gain (a laughable notion), but for the hope of it actually achieving the advancement of better policy, “for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” – for the benefit of all Australians.

He can then choose to agree and adapt, or disagree in wise meekness — or a tantrum like he has.

___

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.