Jacqui Lambie has dramatically escalated the political brawl over Pauline Hanson’s Andrew Hastie cartoon, calling the One Nation leader a “bloody maggot”, a coward and a divisive force before warning: “She’s finished. I’m onto you now.”

The independent Tasmanian senator delivered the extraordinary spray during a News24 appearance as she defended Hastie, a Liberal frontbencher and former Special Air Service Regiment captain, from a One Nation cartoon that repeatedly describes him as a “traitor”.

Lambie, who served in the Australian Army before entering politics, accused Hanson of hiding behind political cartoons while attacking the military record of someone who had served on operations in Afghanistan.

“Anybody that hides behind a cartoon and goes after a veteran and calls them a traitor, a paranoid traitor and a washed-up gutless maggot — I have to say you’re a bloody maggot yourself and you’re a coward,” Lambie said.

Her criticism did not stop there.

Lambie accused Hanson of lacking patriotism, described her as an “angry little woman” and said the One Nation leader was dividing Australia instead of bringing people together.

She also directly invoked her own long history of advocacy for former Australian Defence Force personnel.

“I warned you years ago to leave my bloody veterans alone,” Lambie said, adding that she was “absolutely fuming”.

At the end of the attack, Lambie pointed towards the camera and declared Hanson was “finished”, adding: “I’m onto you now.”

The comments are among the harshest personal attacks delivered during a political controversy that was already unusually bitter.

They have also shifted part of the argument away from whether One Nation crossed a line by calling Hastie a traitor and towards the broader tone of Australian political debate.

The dispute began with a nine-minute episode of One Nation’s Please Explain cartoon series titled Don’t Be Hastie.

The video, published in July and authorised by Hanson, repeatedly uses the word “traitor” while attacking Hastie over his involvement in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case and his eventual support for amended federal anti-hate legislation.

It also uses other insulting descriptions of the Liberal MP.

Hastie responded this week by accusing Hanson and Barnaby Joyce of being “lying cowards” and demanding that the One Nation leader either take responsibility for what the cartoon says or remove it.

Hanson has refused to take it down.

She has argued that she did not personally call Hastie a traitor and that the video should be understood as political satire.

As criticism mounted, Hanson characterised the controversy as a “storm in a teacup” and later told critics to “take a chill pill”.

That defence has convinced neither Hastie nor Lambie.

The central grievance concerns the cartoon’s portrayal of Hastie’s role in Roberts-Smith’s failed defamation proceedings.

Hastie did give evidence that was damaging to his former SAS colleague.

But he appeared in the Federal Court under subpoena.

He was therefore legally compelled to attend and give evidence rather than simply choosing to enter the case as a political or personal opponent of Roberts-Smith.

Hastie has repeatedly argued that complying with a court order and answering questions truthfully under oath should not be treated as betrayal.

More than 20 former SAS personnel gave evidence during the litigation, a point Hastie has used to challenge the broader implication of the One Nation attack.

If his cooperation with the court amounted to treachery, he has asked, what does that say about the other veterans who also gave evidence?

That argument has resonated strongly with Lambie.

She served in the Australian Defence Force from 1989 to 2000 and has built much of her political identity around veterans’ welfare, military compensation and the treatment of former service personnel by government.

Her response has been that political disagreement with Hastie does not justify recasting his military service or his compliance with the judicial system as betrayal of Australia.

“She has no idea of patriotism,” Lambie said of Hanson.

“You don’t attack veterans and you don’t stand like a coward behind your goddamn cartoons.”

Lambie also urged veterans considering supporting One Nation to reconsider.

Her language, however, raises an obvious question of its own.

If the objection to One Nation’s cartoon is that political disagreement has descended into extreme personal vilification, Lambie’s description of Hanson as a “bloody maggot” and other insults inevitably opens her to criticism that she is responding in the same rhetorical style.

That does not make the underlying accusations equivalent.

“Traitor” has a specific and particularly serious meaning when directed at a former soldier. Lambie’s insults, however coarse, do not accuse Hanson of betraying Australia or violating an oath of military service.

But the increasingly personal nature of the exchange illustrates how rapidly the dispute has moved away from a conventional argument over policy.

The Roberts-Smith case remains at the centre of the controversy.

Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient and one of Australia’s most decorated former soldiers, sued Nine newspapers and journalists Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters over reporting concerning alleged conduct in Afghanistan.

He lost the defamation case in 2023 after the Federal Court found several serious imputations had been proved to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

His appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The case has since entered a separate and much more serious criminal phase.

Roberts-Smith was arrested in April 2026 and charged with five counts of the war crime of murder over alleged killings in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.

He denies wrongdoing.

Those criminal allegations remain unresolved and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Findings made in the earlier civil defamation case do not constitute criminal convictions.

Hanson has been a prominent supporter of Roberts-Smith, while Hastie has defended his decision to give evidence as an obligation to the law and to standards of conduct within the Australian military.

The dispute therefore touches a particularly sensitive divide within sections of the veteran community.

One side argues that Australian soldiers, particularly special forces veterans, have endured years of hostile media coverage, investigations and accusations that have damaged reputations before criminal courts have determined individual guilt.

The other argues that loyalty between soldiers cannot mean silence when serious allegations arise and that veterans who cooperate with lawful investigations or court proceedings should not be treated as disloyal.

Hastie and Lambie have firmly adopted the latter position.

The controversy has now attracted condemnation from well beyond either of them.

RSL Australia said describing a veteran as a traitor because of politically contentious actions risked sending a damaging message to the entire veteran community.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called for the One Nation cartoon to be removed.

Nationals leader Matt Canavan has also condemned the language, while former prime minister Tony Abbott — despite having strongly defended Roberts-Smith in the past — has said the video should be taken down.

Greens politicians and Labor figures have separately criticised Hanson’s handling of the issue.

Barnaby Joyce has now distanced himself more decisively from the controversy.

Joyce was not a member of One Nation when the cartoon was produced and has since contacted Hastie to apologise for his part in the dispute.

Hastie accepted the apology.

Hanson has not followed him.

That refusal has increasingly concentrated responsibility for the cartoon on the One Nation leader, particularly because the video remains associated directly with her political brand.

Hastie has said he does not plan legal action. Instead, he intends to make the dispute politically costly for One Nation.

That could matter because the party is targeting his Western Australian seat of Canning as it seeks to convert a recent surge in national support into parliamentary gains.

One Nation has increasingly positioned itself as the principal challenger to the Coalition on the political right, particularly on immigration, free speech, cultural issues and distrust of established institutions.

Hastie himself appeals to many voters in the same conservative constituency.

The confrontation therefore carries consequences beyond a single offensive cartoon.

It is becoming part of a wider struggle over who speaks for conservative Australians, including military veterans.

Lambie’s involvement complicates that contest further.

She is not part of the Liberal Party and has little interest in protecting its internal interests. She and Hanson have clashed repeatedly during their years in federal politics and compete for some of the same anti-establishment voters.

That history means Lambie’s language cannot be separated entirely from a longstanding political rivalry.

Nor should individual social media reactions to Lambie’s comments be treated automatically as evidence of a national backlash.

Her description of Hanson as a “bloody maggot” has predictably drawn criticism online from One Nation supporters and others who regard the outburst as excessive.

But claims that “Australia” or “Tasmania” has collectively turned against Lambie cannot be established from angry posts or comment threads.

There is no national referendum on either senator’s choice of language, and social media reaction is not a representative opinion poll.

What can be established is that both sides are now using extraordinarily personal rhetoric.

One Nation’s cartoon calls Hastie a traitor. Hastie calls Hanson a lying coward. Lambie calls Hanson a bloody maggot and says she is finished. Hanson dismisses the outrage and refuses to take the cartoon down.

At that point, the argument becomes as much about political conduct as it is about the event that began it.

Lambie believes she is defending veterans and the principle that a soldier should not be branded disloyal for obeying a subpoena and participating in the justice system.

Her critics are entitled to ask whether describing a fellow senator in such contemptuous terms strengthens that principle or simply adds another layer of abuse to an already toxic confrontation.

Hanson, meanwhile, faces the same underlying test that Hastie first set for her: whether she is willing to take ownership of the language distributed under her political banner.

Neither woman appears inclined to lower the temperature.

For now, what began as a cartoon attacking one Liberal MP has turned into a wider confrontation over veterans, patriotism, political satire and just how far elected representatives should go when attacking one another.