There is a fairly simple principle that should apply to every elected representative in this country: Australians have the right to question their politicians, challenge their decisions and demand explanations for their conduct, regardless of whether they have served in the Australian Defence Force, worked in government or held public office themselves. Yet an exchange between Liberal MP Andrew Hastie and Chris has raised questions about exactly where the former SAS officer believes that line should be drawn, particularly when the criticism is directed at him.
On 10 September, we published an article detailing Hastie's ongoing social media exchanges, including his response to Chris after Chris questioned his parliamentary decisions. Rather than addressing the political substance of the criticism, Hastie invoked his military service, suggesting that once Chris had taken an oath of enlistment and put his body on the line for Australia, he might begin taking him seriously. He concluded the exchange with the remark, “All the best Little Chocolate, don't melt under the heat.”
It was an extraordinary direction for a conversation about political accountability to take. Chris had not questioned Hastie's military service, nor had he sought to diminish the sacrifices made by Australian servicemen and women. His point was explicitly about Hastie's political decisions, a distinction he made clear during the exchange. The underlying question remains: why should an Australian citizen's right to question a federal politician depend on whether they have worn a military uniform?
Hastie's military service is a matter of public record, and his contribution to the Australian Defence Force is separate from his responsibilities as an elected member of Parliament. He has represented the Western Australian electorate of Canning since 2015 and continues to serve as a Liberal Party MP. Those responsibilities include being answerable for his parliamentary decisions to members of the Australian public, including those who have never served in the military.
SEVEN DAYS TO RESPOND. THE DEADLINE HAS NOW PASSED.
Following the exchange, Chris took the matter beyond the social media comments section and sent formal correspondence to Andrew Hastie requesting an apology for his remarks. A seven-day period was provided, with the deadline falling on Tuesday, 22 September 2026.
That deadline has now passed.
As of Thursday, 24 September, Chris has received no formal apology, acknowledgement or response from Hastie personally or from the Liberal Party in relation to that request. We cannot speak to internal discussions within Hastie's office or the Liberal Party.
This is not simply about two individuals having a disagreement on the internet. The exchange raises a broader question about the standards of communication Australians should be able to expect from their elected representatives, particularly when those representatives are engaging with ordinary citizens in public forums. Social media has become a regular part of political communication, and politicians use those platforms to share their positions, criticise their opponents and engage directly with the community. The same platforms also allow Australians to question what their representatives say and do, sometimes forcefully, without holding a position in Parliament themselves.
There’s a difference between responding to criticism and dismissing the standing of the person making it. Chris's criticism concerned parliamentary conduct, while Hastie's response introduced a comparison based on military service, which is the central reason for an apology.
WHEN THE ROLES ARE REVERSED
Earlier this month, Hastie publicly objected to a One Nation cartoon that repeatedly referred to him as a traitor, arguing that it attacked his military service and his role in giving evidence in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation proceedings. Barnaby Joyce subsequently apologised, and Hastie accepted that apology.
The circumstances of the cartoon controversy and Chris's exchange with Hastie are different, nevertheless, they raise an important question about how public figures handle criticism, the language used in political disagreements and the role of apologies when a person believes a public exchange has crossed a line.
Chris's request was straightforward: that Hastie acknowledge his remarks and provide a formal apology. The seven-day deadline has passed without that request being answered.
The matter also concerns the Liberal Party because Hastie speaks publicly as one of its elected parliamentary representatives. While individual MPs are responsible for their own statements, the party has a legitimate role in explaining the standards it expects from those representing it, particularly when members of the public raise concerns through formal correspondence.
AUSTRALIANS DO NOT NEED AN ENLISTMENT OATH TO HAVE A VOICE
Military service and democratic participation are different forms of service and responsibility. The contribution of Australian Defence Force personnel deserves recognition, but a person's military background does not determine whether another Australian is entitled to participate in political debate.
Despite what Andrew Hastie has said, a teacher questioning education policy, a nurse questioning healthcare funding, a small-business owner questioning taxation or a parent questioning the government's decisions does not need to establish a record of military service before their concerns can be heard.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY DOES NOT REQUIRE PERSONAL ABUSE
Anyone wishing to express a view about this matter can do so through the ordinary channels available to the public, including contacting Andrew Hastie's parliamentary office or the Liberal Party directly. Whether you agree with Chris's concerns, disagree with his interpretation or simply want clarification about the exchange, a written enquiry provides an opportunity to put those questions on the record.
That communication should remain factual, respectful and directed at the issue itself. There is no place for threats, personal abuse or targeting an MP's family, staff or other private individuals. Parliamentary staff are not personally responsible for every statement made by the politician they work for, and disagreement with an elected representative does not justify mistreating the people who answer their phones or manage their correspondence.
For anyone who chooses to write, the relevant official contact details are:
Email: Andrew.Hastie.MP@aph.gov.au
