Jordon Steele-John to Stay Away From Parliament: Row Over Allegations

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Jordon Steele-John to Stay Away From Parliament: Row Over Allegations.

Late Friday evening, Western Australian Greens senator Jordon Steele-John published a statement on social media. In it, he confirmed that he would not be in Parliament next week. At the same time, he released a three-page letter dated 13 October that had previously been published by the Nine newspapers. The immediate consequence is clear: Steele-John will be absent during next week’s parliamentary session.

The October 13 Letter Makes the Internal Dispute Public

The sequence of events

According to Guardian Australia, the historical complaints about suspected misconduct had initially become public after several days of uncertainty. Steele-John subsequently responded with his Friday-evening statement. The media reporting therefore came before his public response; his reaction to the allegations was not part of the original publication.

The party is divided over the leave

The dispute with party leader David Shoebridge explains why Steele-John himself describes his absence as unusual. Shoebridge said Steele-John had personally requested leave and that he had approved it the previous week. The trigger was reportedly seven party members who had called on the party leader in a letter to launch an investigation.

Steele-John, however, denies having agreed to the leave. In a detailed statement on Sunday, he accused an unofficial faction within the WA Greens of playing “nasty political games” by publishing the complaint letter. According to his account, the faction wanted to push him out of the Senate.

2017 to 2025: What the Letter Actually Alleges

The allegations at a glance

The letter’s authors say they had been informed of several allegations of serious misconduct. The allegations concern Steele-John’s behavior in the presence of women. They do not provide a specific description of it in either the email or the letter.

One allegation concerns sexual harassment at a Greens campaign event in 2024. The alleged victim did not report the incident, out of fear of retaliation and counterattacks. The letter provides no further details on this point.

In a second allegation, the authors refer to “serious sexual misconduct” in 2025. They also mention the nickname “feels on wheels”. According to them, this implied that Steele-John had a reputation for behaving inappropriately. This reference does not itself prove such a reputation, but merely repeats what the authors associated with the term.

The limits set by the letter’s authors

The authors explicitly state: “An allegation is not synonymous with a fact and/or guilt.” They consider a thorough investigation of every allegation necessary, “in line with the expectations of the community and members.” Steele-John also rejected the allegations and called for a fair and thorough review.

The letter itself is therefore not an independent examination of the allegations. It documents which claims have been made and how the authors and Steele-John have responded to them. It does not yet provide a definitive determination of the matter.

One Week Away, the Rest of the Year Unresolved

What Steele-John has confirmed

Steele-John said late Friday evening: “Over the past few days, a growing chorus has urged me not to go to Parliament next week.” He had considered participating digitally but was told that this, too, would be “unacceptable.” Instead, he wanted to see an independent investigation through to completion.

His absence was therefore not solely a physical decision. Virtual participation in the Senate Estimates was apparently under discussion but was presented to him as unacceptable. Steele-John also said a precedent was now being set by keeping MPs away from Parliament based on “claims about claims.” His rhetorical clincher: “Had an allegation or complaint been made against me, I would have taken these steps immediately.”

The confirmed consequence initially remains an absence next week. The report does not announce a permanent absence or a formal resignation. There is still no final clarity about Steele-John’s participation for the remainder of the year. His absence has been confirmed; the question of whether he initiated and agreed to the leave remains disputed between him and Shoebridge.

The Review Is Continuing Independently

Two levels of investigation

The complaints are now the subject of an independent investigation commissioned by the WA Greens. They have also been referred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Alongside the public dispute, there is therefore a formal review process whose outcome is not yet available in the report.

Guardian Australia also confirms that WA Police told Steele-John an investigation had been closed in May without charges. This is the strongest concrete point in his public position: at least according to his own account, he was not accused of facing criminal prosecution over the conduct in question.

However, the report does not explicitly link the police case closed in May to the current investigations by the WA Greens and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Without further details, it is therefore impossible to say whether both proceedings concern the same matter. The independent review should also not be confused with a verdict on the allegations.

What Is Established — and What the Facts Do Not Show

It is established that Steele-John will stay away from Parliament next week, has published a three-page letter and rejects the allegations made against him. It is also established that the independent investigation commissioned by the WA Greens has begun, that the complaints have been referred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, and that WA Police notified Steele-John of an investigation closed in May without charges.

It is not established whether the allegations are true. They are not proven by either the complaint letter or the public dispute. Steele-John’s strongest argument is his reference to the closed police investigation without charges. The strongest counterpoint is that the specifically named allegations from 2017 to 2025 are still undergoing an independent review, with no result yet available.

The political assessment therefore remains sober: his absence next week is settled. The reason for the course of action remains politically disputed, but the review of the allegations does not.