Growing Scrutiny Over One Nation's Financial Practices
Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is facing mounting questions about its financial management as the populist right-wing movement gains political momentum across Australia. The party, which has been steadily increasing its vote share and parliamentary representation, is now under the microscope for how it handles millions of dollars in public funding and treats its own candidates.
Former Candidates Speak Out About Financial Losses
Jennifer Game, a former One Nation Senate candidate and policy adviser to Hanson, describes a disturbing pattern of financial treatment toward those who run for the party. After spending $29,000 of her own money on her 2025 Senate campaign in South Australia, Game says she has received no reimbursement from the party despite submitting receipts and raising approximately $10,000 through fundraisers.
"It feels like a money-making scheme going on here," Game told investigators. "They don't think anyone is going to do anything about it." She has now launched legal action to recover $14,271 she believes the party owes her for eligible campaign expenses.
Game questions whether receipts submitted by candidates are actually being used by the party in its claims for public funding, highlighting what she calls a "weakness in the law" that allows for minimal transparency. "Nobody really knows what happens to the money that goes to One Nation, as long as they comply with the electoral law," she explained.
Millions in Taxpayer Funding With Limited Accountability
One Nation has transformed into a multimillion-dollar organization through Australia's electoral funding system. In the 2025 federal election, the party received $6.08 million from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) after securing approximately 6.4% of the national vote. This represents a dramatic increase from the $1.7 million received after the 2016 election.
However, Guardian Australia can reveal a significant discrepancy between the funding received and declared expenditures. While One Nation banked over $6 million from the AEC in 2025, the total electoral expenditure declared by the party's 160 candidates was just $872,116. Seventy-six candidates declared spending nothing at all on their campaigns.
The party is known to run "ghost candidates" in many metropolitan seats to secure public funding entitlements. These candidates, usually drawn from the party's membership base, are largely invisible during election campaigns but help the party reach the 4% threshold required for public funding.
Pattern of Financial Irregularities and AEC Audits
One Nation has faced repeated allegations of financial improprieties, with Hanson twice being forced to repay election funding after AEC investigations. In 2021, the electoral commission found she had wrongly claimed about $165,000 in expenses, determining that claims were either "not electoral expenditure" or for spending "that had not been incurred."
Following the $6 million payout in 2025, the AEC is again auditing the party's expenditure claims as part of its review of all party spending. Hanson, as the party's registered agent, is required to provide "specific evidence of payment" for any claims above $10,000.
The party's membership structure represents another significant revenue stream. With reports suggesting the party is approaching 50,000 members paying between $60 and $500 annually, this could generate at least $3 million for the Brisbane headquarters each year.
Additional Candidate Experiences Reveal Similar Patterns
Robert Hicks, a former One Nation candidate in the vast Leichhardt electorate in Queensland, shares a similar experience. After spending about $12,000 of his own money on his campaign and receiving approximately 8% of the primary vote, he was only reimbursed $2,800 by the party nine months after the election.
Based on the 7,568 primary votes Hicks received, the AEC public funding return to his party would have equated to a maximum entitlement of $25,625. This means as much as $22,000 could have been returned to party coffers on the back of his vote if proof of expenditure were provided.
"Where has all that money gone?" Hicks asked. "It is just a nasty, toxic organization." He resigned from the party in February after his requests for a breakdown of reimbursed expenses went unanswered.
Chaotic Headquarters Operations Revealed
Former employees describe the One Nation headquarters in Brisbane as "the most disorganized, chaotic, dysfunctional, politically incorrect office" they have ever worked in. One former receptionist, identified as Angela, reported witnessing inappropriate banter, verbal abuse, contempt for party members, and extreme disorganization.
When she started working there in February 2025, Angela says there were 20,000 unread emails in the party's main inbox. "They enjoy being in the shit," she observed. "I have not seen anything like it."
The office is thinly staffed, with key positions held by individuals with controversial backgrounds. Operations manager Alexander Jones, who also serves as party treasurer, pleaded guilty to attempted electoral fraud in 2023. Campaign manager Sean Black, a convicted rapist sentenced to five years' jail in 2017, was recently terminated after public backlash.
Concentration of Power in Hanson's Hands
Guardian Australia has obtained a copy of One Nation's constitution, which reveals the extraordinary concentration of power in Pauline Hanson's hands. The 2017 amendments made Hanson president for life and expressly state that she will choose her successor, expected to be her daughter, Lee Hanson.
The constitution gives the national executive, which can be as few as three members, the power to disband subordinate bodies and expel any individual from the party. As president, Hanson is the registered officer of the party in all states "by default" and can delegate any state position to someone of her choosing.
Jim Savage, former national president of One Nation who was responsible for bringing Hanson back into the party before her successful 2016 Senate campaign, describes the power structure bluntly: "What is at the core of all the issues of One Nation is you have got one person in Pauline Hanson who is everything."
Merchandise Sales and Inter-Branch Transfers Raise Questions
The party's merchandise operations have attracted regulatory attention in New South Wales. Former One Nation parliamentarians Rod Roberts and Mark Latham used parliamentary privilege to accuse the party of "defrauding NSW electoral funds" by diverting money provided under the state's electoral administration fund to Brisbane headquarters.
Latham claimed this money was used to buy party merchandise and equipment like conveyor belts for production lines, with the merchandise then being resold to fund federal campaigns. He described this as "Ashby-style money laundering," referring to Hanson's chief of staff James Ashby.
Financial disclosures reveal a pattern of inter-branch loans and transfers. The Queensland division lent $77,500 to the NSW branch across 2020 and 2021 at an interest rate of 12.7%. Hanson herself is listed as a donor to the party federally, having made payments totalling $245,000 before the last election, which the party claims were loans made on "commercial terms."
Growing Political Momentum Amid Financial Questions
Despite these financial controversies, One Nation continues to gain political ground. The party defied expectations in the March South Australian election, riding an "orange wave" that handed it four lower house and three upper house seats. One Nation now regularly out-polls the Liberal and National parties in some surveys.
With public funding rates set to increase by almost 50% to $5 per vote at the next federal election, and current polling suggesting One Nation could almost quadruple its 2025 result, many more millions are likely to flow into party coffers.
As Game emphasizes: "It is important as One Nation becomes a major party and the amount of public funding that is going to go their way – there needs to be accountability." The party did not respond to questions from Guardian Australia about these financial management concerns.
