In the lead-up to Victoria's November state election, One Nation has drawn scrutiny for charging aspiring candidates fees totalling up to $633,000 — a practice that raises enduring questions about the line between party administration and institutional self-interest. Rejected applicants, many of them experienced local government figures, describe a selection process that felt less like a search for talent and more like a mechanism for extracting funds from civic-minded citizens willing to pay for the chance to serve. The episode invites reflection on how democratic participation can be quietly
One Nation faces 'cash grab' accusations over $630k candidate fees
used, lied to, misled and gaslit
Mark
So One Nation collected $633,000 from candidates in Victoria. That's a specific number. Where does it come from?
Mimi
It's an estimate based on what the party told the Guardian. They said 1,209 people expressed interest, about 220 made it to the final stage, and they're running 96 candidates total. The $150 application fee, the $60 membership, and the $5,500 campaign fee—you multiply those by the numbers and you get to $633,000.
Luke
But did all 220 people actually pay? Did all 96 candidates pay the full $5,500? The article says "could collect as much as"—that's an estimate, not a confirmed total.
Mimi
Right. It's the ceiling. The actual number could be lower if some people didn't pay or dropped out. But the structure is real. The fees are documented.
Mark
Why does One Nation charge these fees at all?
Mimi
They say it's cost recovery—police checks, vetting, that kind of thing. But the applicants don't believe that. They think it's fundraising.
Luke
And the major parties don't charge campaign fees like this?
Mimi
No. They charge application fees, but not the $5,500 per-candidate campaign contribution. That's the unusual part.
Mark
So what's the harm if people choose to pay?
Mimi
The harm is that most of these candidates were running in seats One Nation can't win. They were told that in interviews. So they paid thousands of dollars to run in races they had no realistic chance of winning. And then they were rejected anyway.
Luke
Were they told upfront that most seats were unwinnable, or did they learn that during the interview?
Mimi
The article says they were "advised in interviews" about it. So it sounds like they found out after they'd already paid the $150 application fee.
Mark
And the non-disclosure agreements?
Mimi
Everyone had to sign one. Which meant they couldn't talk about the process publicly until the Guardian started reporting on it.
Luke
One Nation says this is standard practice. Is it?
Mimi
Application fees are standard. The NDAs are less common. The campaign fees are unusual. And the combination—the fees plus the NDAs plus the short interviews plus the predetermined outcomes—that's what people are objecting to.
Mark
What happens to the money?
Mimi
It goes into the Victorian state campaign account, according to One Nation. But one applicant thought it would flow to Brisbane headquarters. That's not confirmed.
Luke
So there's a question about where the money actually goes that the article doesn't resolve.
Mimi
Correct. One Nation says it stays in Victoria. The applicants suspect it doesn't. That's still open.
El Pulso
- One Nation has collected or stands to collect up to $633,000 from Victorian election hopefuls through a layered fee structure — $150 to apply, $60 for membership, and $5,500 if preselected — most of it from candidates running in seats the party itself acknowledges are unwinnable.
- Rejected applicants — including former mayors and deputy mayors — are speaking out, describing 15-minute video interviews, mandatory non-disclosure agreements, and a process they believe was designed to legitimise decisions already made behind closed doors.
- A complaint letter sent to the party captures the mood of those who feel wronged: applicants say they were 'used, lied to, misled and gaslit,' and that the open selection process was cover for a 'biased and self-serving leadership process.'
- A political consultant who worked with One Nation in Victoria has called the operation a 'money-spinning exercise,' while applicants suspect the fees are being funnelled to Brisbane headquarters to fund the party's federal election ambitions rather than the Victorian campaign.
- One Nation insists the fees follow a 'nominal cost recovery model' and comply with electoral commission rules, but has not explained why its fees are substantially higher than those of Labor or the Coalition, nor why unwinnable-seat candidates are asked to pay them at all.
- With One Nation also positioned to receive up to $10 million through Victoria's public electoral funding scheme, the question of whether candidate fees represent genuine administration costs or a parallel fundraising operation is becoming harder to dismiss.
In the lead-up to Victoria's November state election, One Nation has drawn scrutiny for charging aspiring candidates fees totalling up to $633,000 — a practice that raises enduring questions about the line between party administration and institutional self-interest. Rejected applicants, many of them experienced local government figures, describe a selection process that felt less like a search for talent and more like a mechanism for extracting funds from civic-minded citizens willing to pay for the chance to serve. The episode invites reflection on how democratic participation can be quietly monetised, and what it means when the cost of standing for public office flows not toward the public good, but toward a party's private ambitions.
One Nation stands to collect as much as $633,000 from people who sought to run for the party in Victoria's November state election — a figure that has prompted serious questions about whether the candidate selection process was ever really about finding the best representatives.
The fee structure was layered: a $150 non-refundable application fee upfront, a $60 annual membership fee for those who advanced, and a $5,500 campaign contribution for anyone ultimately preselected. One Nation says 1,209 people submitted expressions of interest, with around 220 reaching the final stage. Running the numbers across 88 lower house and eight upper house candidates, the total approaches $633,000. What sets One Nation apart from Labor and the Coalition is the campaign fee itself — the major parties charge application fees but do not demand per-candidate campaign contributions of this scale, particularly from people contesting seats widely regarded as unwinnable.
The human cost of the process is being felt by former councillors, mayors, and deputy mayors who applied in good faith. A complaint letter sent to the party — and seen by Guardian Australia — described applicants feeling 'used, lied to, misled and gaslit,' and argued that the process appeared designed to provide political cover for decisions already made, rather than to conduct a genuine merit-based search. Concerns also emerged that upper house candidates were effectively 'captain's picks' made by state leader Warren Pickering, bypassing applicants with substantial experience.
Aidan McLindon, a political consultant formerly associated with One Nation in Victoria, described the operation bluntly as a 'money-spinning exercise' that prioritised profit over policy. Several applicants believe the fees are destined for the party's Brisbane headquarters, with one suggesting the states are being used as fundraising vehicles for One Nation's federal ambitions. 'I just think it is a cash grab for the federal election,' one applicant said.
One Nation responded by saying its fees follow a 'nominal cost recovery model' covering police and background checks, and that all funds have been deposited into the Victorian state campaign account in line with electoral commission rules. The party did not address why its fees are higher than those of its competitors, or why candidates in unwinnable seats are being asked to bear them. The question becomes sharper still given that One Nation is also positioned to receive up to $10 million through Victoria's public electoral funding scheme — raising the possibility that the candidate fee structure is less about covering costs and more about building a war chest for the federal contest ahead.
One Nation could pocket as much as $633,000 from people who wanted to run for the party in Victoria's November state election—money that has left rejected applicants questioning whether they were part of a genuine candidate search or an elaborate fundraising scheme.
The party required anyone interested in running to pay $150 upfront as a non-refundable application fee. Those who made it to the final stage faced additional costs: a $60 annual membership fee and, if preselected, a $5,500 campaign contribution. One Nation told Guardian Australia that 1,209 people submitted expressions of interest. Of those, approximately 220 advanced to the final round. The math is straightforward: the application fees alone would generate roughly $33,000, membership fees another $72,000, and the candidate fees—based on running 88 lower house candidates and eight upper house candidates—would bring in $528,000. Combined, the total approaches $633,000.
What distinguishes One Nation's model from the major parties is the campaign fee itself. Labor and the Coalition do charge application fees, but they do not levy the kind of per-candidate campaign contributions One Nation is demanding. The distinction matters because most of the seats One Nation is fielding candidates in are not considered winnable. Applicants were told this during their interviews. They were also required to sign non-disclosure agreements about the selection process, and each candidate underwent a 15-minute video interview before a decision was made.
Former councillors, mayors, and deputy mayors who applied have described the experience as a "pay-to-play" process. One former Victorian mayor sent a complaint letter to the party saying applicants felt "used, lied to, misled and gaslit." The letter, seen by Guardian Australia, argued that the process appeared designed to provide cover for decisions that had already been made, creating the appearance of an open, merit-based search while serving as "an elaborate exercise merely to provide legitimacy, numbers or political cover for what now appears to have been a biased and self-serving leadership process." Concerns also surfaced about upper house candidates being "captain's picks" selected by state leader Warren Pickering, with the party overlooking applicants who had substantial local government and professional experience.
Aidan McLindon, a political consultant who worked with One Nation in Victoria, described the operation as a "money-spinning exercise" that showed the party was "disproportionately focusing on profits over policy." One applicant questioned whether the fees were genuinely about cost recovery or a way to fund the federal election. "They are asking everyday folk, hard-working mums and dads, for $5,500 which is a lot of money," the person said. "I just think it is a cash grab for the federal election. My feeling is they are just using all of the states to fundraise for the federal election where they want to take power." Another applicant believed that under the party's constitution, all funds would flow to One Nation's Brisbane headquarters, allowing the party to accumulate roughly $800,000 "for doing absolutely nothing."
One Nation's response was measured. A party spokesperson said the fees follow "a nominal cost recovery model to do police and other checks on candidate nominees" and that all candidate fees have been deposited into the Victorian state campaign account in accordance with electoral commission rules. The party also noted that "application fees and campaign contributions are a standard requirement implemented by all major parties within Australia." What One Nation did not address was why the fees are substantially higher than those charged by competitors, or why candidates in unwinnable seats are being asked to pay them at all.
The timing adds another layer. One Nation is positioned to receive as much as $10 million through Victoria's public electoral funding scheme based on its polling numbers. The question hanging over the candidate fee structure is whether it represents genuine cost recovery or a parallel fundraising operation designed to bolster the party's war chest ahead of a federal election where One Nation has signaled ambitions to gain real power.
Citas Notables
The process appeared designed to provide cover for decisions already made, creating the appearance of an open, merit-based search while serving as cover for a biased and self-serving leadership process.— Complaint letter from former Victorian mayor, seen by Guardian Australia
They are asking everyday folk, hard-working mums and dads, for $5,500 which is a lot of money. I just think it is a cash grab for the federal election.— Local government applicant who questioned the process
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en The Guardian ↗