It’s not a stretch to suggest that the timing of a letter regarding WA Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John — laying out allegations of inappropriate comments and behaviour toward women — could be factionally motivated.
There are obvious tensions in the WA Greens, and in the Greens more broadly, given the ructions over the federal leadership. There is an impending pre-selection for a WA Senate spot, previously held by Dorinda Cox (who defected to Labor while facing bullying allegations), in which two white women named Sophie are competing to be top of the ticket (Steele-John has four years left on his own term, but he clearly has a horse in that race).
There might well be, as Steele-John argued in Sunday’s unhelpful social media statement, “nasty political games” afoot (the senator uses this 2,400-word post to deny any inappropriate behaviour towards women, and to controversially reject David Shoebridge’s assertion that he is on leave). Steele-John claims it is an attempt to “smear potential candidates and myself”, adding it is “no coincidence” the letter that instigated the entire episode was sent “the day after we agreed on the timeline for the next preselection”.
Related Article Block Placeholder Article ID: 1269333
I’d throw into the mix the fact that Steele-John ran for deputy in September’s contested ballot, winning just two votes — the same number Sarah Hanson-Young received for leader. Hanson-Young, who did not run an official joint ticket, reportedly complained about Larissa Waters not backing a woman, lamenting a lack of “sisterhood”, which might have angered those with concerns about Steele-John, if they assumed Hanson-Young voted for him.
But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if this timing is political, or factional, or aimed at damaging “potential candidates” in an upcoming race. What matters is whether the rumours that have long dogged Steele-John are true, and what those who sought to quash them knew of their nature — something everyone involved should hope an independent inquiry can quickly and clearly get to the bottom of.
Independent. Irreverent. In your inbox
Get the headlines they don’t want you to read. Sign up to Crikey’s free newsletters for fearless reporting, sharp analysis, and a touch of chaos.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
I’d like to clarify before I go on that I don’t know the Greens members who signed that letter, and I know nothing of the specific allegations against Steele-John beyond the vibes-based rumours that circulate. As Steele-John argues in his statement, the letter does not set out any allegations in detail, and it is difficult to respond to unspecified allegations (though why he thought it appropriate to post, to raise other claims against him, and to profess his own victimhood in another situation, is beyond me).
But I do believe it is important that this information sees the light of day, or at least the light of an inquiry. Sunshine, after all, is the best disinfectant. True or not, there are serious concerns when women are being “warned not to be alone” with a senator, as the letter describes. Such an inquiry should also look into whether senior members of the Greens mishandled this, based on what they knew of the rumours and when.
Nine reporter James Massola — who first reported on the letter, and on the secret dossier created in 2016 to handle certain rumours — has spent years trying to report this story, and has done an excellent job of laying out what he can. But I must reject his claim that it’s “balderdash” to suggest the timing of this is factional (Massola is talking about a hitjob on Shoebridge, which, to be fair, I don’t think it is). There’s internal politics all over this, because guess what? This — as much as the Greens might not like to admit it — is politics.
Let’s say the timing of the letter is political — I find much of Steele-John’s statement highly problematic, but I’m inclined to agree with him that the timing is “no coincidence” (nothing in life is). If you were someone with genuinely held concerns about an opponent’s behaviour, and about the way past allegations were handled, would it not make sense to raise it now, under a new leader with clean hands, ahead of a pre-selection that might elevate one of those you believe mishandled it?
Related Article Block Placeholder Article ID: 1268887
While the past week has been hugely damaging to the Greens, Shoebridge, who denies ever seeing the dossier of claims about Steele-John, has done his best to handle this appropriately. The fact Steele-John has decided to make this difficult — via his lengthy statement and decision to contradict his leader, refusing to quietly stand aside while an independent inquiry takes place (it’s still not clear if he is coming to work next week) — indicates the internal politics may only just be beginning.
None of this is to say that weaponising allegations is okay, or that political actors should leak unfounded hearsay against one another. But the Steele-John rumours have been floating around long enough that they do warrant an inquiry — regardless of which faction is calling for it.
The best thing for everyone involved now would be to let the investigation run its course, and commit to accepting its findings. It’s time to clear the air, one way or the other.