Fred RiversGreens senator Jordon Steele-John has taken leave from the party room after seven party members wrote to leader David Shoebridge on Tuesday 13 October 2026, asking for an independent investigation into "multiple allegations" about his behaviour around women between 2017 and 2025. The story broke on Thursday 15 October 2026. Senator Steele-John "utterly rejects" the characterisation, and no allegation has been tested or proven.
What has been reported so far
According to the ABC, the letter came from five current and former staffers and two active branch members. They say the allegations all concern his behaviour "in the presence of women", and that women taking up or volunteering for party roles were warned not to be alone with him. The Sydney Morning Herald, which first reported the letter, withheld the signatories' names.
Senator Steele-John, who has represented Western Australia since 2017 and holds the disability inclusion, health and mental health portfolios, has referred the matter to the WA Greens. He wants a process that respects natural justice and procedural fairness. He says the claims lack specifics, that he is prepared to address any allegation, and that one complaint relates to a former relationship in which he says he was the victim of abuse, a matter he has raised with WA Police.
Mr Shoebridge told reporters the party is treating the concerns "extremely seriously" and that the WA Greens will commission an independent inquiry. He says he knew of no allegations before the letter arrived. He has given no timeline and has not said whether findings will be made public. Pedestrian.TV reports it is unclear whether the leave extends beyond the party room to parliamentary duties.
The letter's authors acknowledge that an allegation is not proof of guilt. They also want protocols changed so that action does not depend on police charges. That last point is the legal question many readers will ask.
Does a party inquiry need a police complaint first?
No. A police report and a workplace or party complaint are separate tracks with different tests.
A criminal matter needs proof beyond reasonable doubt and goes through police and prosecutors. A workplace or party-run inquiry asks a different question: did conduct occur that breaches the organisation's standards, and what should it do about it? Civil standards apply, meaning the balance of probabilities, with more cogent evidence expected for serious claims.
For employees and volunteers in a workplace, Australian law does not wait for charges. Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, sexual harassment at work is unlawful. Since December 2022 employers have also had a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination, and the Australian Human Rights Commission has had enforcement powers over that duty since December 2023. The practical meaning: an organisation that hears credible concerns is expected to act on them, not to sit back until a criminal charge appears.
What natural justice means for the person accused
The senator's call for procedural fairness is not a technicality. A fair process usually means the person accused is told the substance of what is alleged, gets a genuine chance to respond, and is judged by someone independent who has no stake in the result. Complainants, for their part, are entitled to be heard, protected from retaliation and kept informed.
Both things can be true at once: an organisation can take allegations seriously and still insist that nobody is treated as guilty before findings are made. Lawyers who advise on workplace investigations often say the biggest failures come from processes that skip one side or the other.
Independence also matters for credibility. An inquiry run by people close to either side invites doubt about its findings, whatever it concludes. That is why the letter's authors asked for an outside investigator and for the outcome to be shared with them, and why lawyers advising organisations stress clear terms of reference, a defined scope and written reasons at the end.
Speaking up without creating legal risk
Public attention raises a second issue: what people can safely say. Under Australia's uniform defamation laws, a person who believes they have been defamed must send a concerns notice, and the other party has 28 days to make an offer to resolve it. Proceedings generally must start within one year of publication, although courts can extend that. A plaintiff must also show serious harm to reputation.
That is why people with concerns are usually advised to use formal channels first: the party's complaints process, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, the Commission, or a lawyer. Repeating allegations on social media can expose the speaker to risk, and it can also compromise an inquiry.
Concrete case: a branch volunteer with a 2024 incident
Take a hypothetical composite, not a real person. A part-time campaign worker employed by a political organisation in Perth says that in March 2024 a senior figure made repeated sexual comments at a staff event. She did not complain at the time. It is now October 2026, about 31 months later, and she hears that other people have raised similar concerns.
If she wants to take the matter to the Australian Human Rights Commission, the clock matters. The Commission can terminate a complaint that is lodged more than 24 months after the alleged conduct, unless there is good reason to extend. In her case, if the 24-month window was the only route, she would be roughly seven months out of time and would need to explain the delay or look at other avenues.
Now vary the facts. If the conduct was part of a pattern that continued into 2025, say a further incident in November 2025, then that later incident sits about 11 months back and is within the window. If the organisation received earlier complaints and did nothing, it may also face questions about whether it met its positive duty. If she instead only wants an internal investigation, no statutory deadline applies, but delay can make evidence harder to find.
What does this show? Timing is the first thing a lawyer will check, and it often changes which options are real. A short consultation at the start can save months.
What to do if you are in a similar position
If you are a worker, volunteer or staffer with a concern, write down dates, places, witnesses and any messages while memories are fresh. Check your employer or organisation's complaints policy, and ask for a copy if you have not seen it. Consider confidential support through a lawyer, a union, a community legal centre or a workplace support service before you post publicly.
If you are the person facing an allegation, get advice early, respond through the formal process, avoid contacting complainants directly, and keep records. Retaliation can itself create a separate legal problem.
If you are an employer, manager or party office-holder, the positive duty means documenting what you did to prevent harassment, not only how you responded after something happened. Training, clear reporting lines and independent options for complaints all count.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Allegations reported here are unproven and denied. Employment, discrimination and defamation outcomes depend on the facts and the specific law that applies. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 sets out the legislative framework at legislation.gov.au. For related reading, see how workplace rights apply when health or personal circumstances change in Larissa Waters Steps Down: What Chronic Illness Means for Workplace Rights.
If this story raises something personal, Lifeline is on 13 11 14, and 000 is for emergencies. If you need to understand your rights at work, an employment or discrimination lawyer on Expert Zoom can walk you through your options and the deadlines that apply to you.
