I’m often copied into posts or replies urging me to support One Nation, and sometimes met with insults when I don’t. This is simply an explanation of why I cannot.
I respect people’s right to join the party and to vote for its candidates. But I cannot ignore what I see as a repeated pattern of poor judgement and ethical concerns in decisions made under its leadership.
A particularly troubling example involved the hiring of a volunteer who had a prior conviction for serious child sexual offences and was later publicly defended by the party leadership when concerns were raised about the appointment.
This was followed by controversy surrounding the repeated engagement of a senior campaign staffer with a serious history of violent offending, including sexual and domestic violence related offences. Despite widespread public concern and criticism, there were multiple instances where the individual was re engaged in senior roles before ultimately being removed after significant political and media pressure.
Leadership responses to these situations have, at various times, been framed as offering “a second chance”, while concerns raised internally and externally were reportedly dismissed or described as politically motivated attacks rather than matters of standards or judgement.
Recent state and federal elections have also been associated with further vetting controversies, including candidates who reportedly had histories involving intervention orders, restraining order breaches, or other serious legal matters. In some cases, individuals were disendorsed only after such issues became publicly known.
These do not appear to be isolated oversights. Former candidates and insiders have publicly alleged that internal concerns about vetting and candidate suitability were not always acted on appropriately.
I am not suggesting the party leader is personally responsible for every individual’s past actions, nor for every decision made at organisational level. But as leader, there is responsibility for the standards set, the culture reinforced, and the judgement applied in senior appointments and candidate selection.
When leaders lower standards, it is perhaps unsurprising when volunteers or candidates appear to follow suit. Recent public controversies have only reinforced that concern for me, including incidents involving volunteers, public defence of questionable conduct by party representatives, and examples of candidates using language in public commentary that many would consider inappropriate for someone seeking public office.
That is not the level of conduct, professionalism, or judgement I expect from people seeking public office. People are entitled to criticise behaviour they disagree with, but public representatives should be capable of doing so without resorting to personal abuse.
When a party campaigns heavily on law and order, protecting women and children, and being tough on crime, repeated controversies involving staffing and candidate selection connected to serious criminal histories inevitably undermine its credibility. The rhetoric and the actions do not always appear to align.
Leading a protest movement is very different from governing. Government requires disciplined teams, consistent standards, and careful judgement in who is placed in positions of responsibility. In my view, the pattern of controversies reflects a politics of outrage rather than the stability and accountability expected of a governing party.
These repeated staffing and candidate controversies matter because leadership appointments are a direct reflection of judgement. While the party often frames such decisions as redemption or second chances, the issue is whether individuals with serious histories of violence or abuse should be placed into senior campaign or representative political roles, particularly in a party that emphasises law and order and community safety.
That distinction is important.
A leader’s hiring decisions reveal the standards they apply when responsibility and public trust are involved. In my view, these decisions demonstrate poor judgement and undermine confidence in leadership standards.
To me, this goes beyond politics. It speaks to judgement.
Decision making relies on personal standards, evidence, accountability, and risk assessment. In these cases, the willingness to prioritise redemption narratives while dismissing concerns as political attacks raises questions about consistency and safeguards.
That is not leadership I can place confidence in.
If judgement is compromised in high stakes personnel decisions, it raises legitimate questions about the quality of judgement applied elsewhere, in governance, policy, and accountability.
Some people may see these matters differently, particularly if they have never been personally affected by violence or abuse. But for those who have, the impact is not abstract. The seriousness of these issues cannot be set aside while simultaneously claiming to champion victims and community safety.
For these reasons, I cannot support a political party that, in my view, has repeatedly shown poor judgement in dealing with issues involving serious violence, abuse, and community safety.
I respect your right to support One Nation if you choose to do so. I simply ask that my decision not to is respected in return.
