How to kill a story: The secret dossier the Greens used to protect Steele-John

The dossier was an internal crisis communications document about allegations involving Senator Jordon Steele-John. It set out how the Greens could manage public discussion and media reporting. Its existence matters because it shows the party was coordinating responses rather than leaving complaints entirely to an independent process.

The document suggested ways to shut down coverage of allegations. It also directed taxpayer-funded Greens staff to monitor social media conversations and take screenshots of comments made by party members. The dossier used agreed wording that described the women’s complaints as an “interpersonal” dispute.

Four former Greens staffers confirmed the dossier was real and had been used by the WA Greens and the national leader’s office. The article does not establish every action taken under its instructions. It does show that managing the story and watching internal discussion were part of the documented strategy.

The dossier was first drafted in 2016 and updated in the years that followed. The article says it remained in a Google Drive folder accessible to Western Australian Greens and national Greens staff for close to a decade. That length of use suggests the document was not a short-lived response.

Its size was 47 pages. The folder could be accessed by staff in both the WA branch and the national party, giving the strategy a reach beyond one local office. Four former Greens staffers also confirmed that the dossier was genuine and had been used.

The article does not provide an exact date when access ended or a precise list of every person who opened the folder. It does establish that the document was created before Steele-John entered the Senate, repeatedly updated, and available across state and national party operations.

Jordon Steele-John is a Greens senator from Western Australia. The article says he was parachuted into the Senate in 2017, after the party had already been managing complaints about his conduct. He later became the subject of renewed calls for an independent investigation.

Before he entered the Senate, at least two young female Greens members allegedly complained about inappropriate remarks. The allegations concerned comments made while Steele-John was working with them. The women eventually decided not to pursue the complaint, and the party agreed to describe the matter as an “interpersonal” dispute.

Steele-John rejects the characterisation of him in the allegations. He said the claims lacked specifics and that any allegation of this nature was extremely serious. The article reports allegations, not established findings, and says he was prepared to address any specific complaint.

Sarah Nielsen-Harvey resigned as a WA Greens co-convener in July 2017, after less than a year in the role. Her public email said she wanted to focus on university studies. It also referred indirectly to behaviour and culture she could not continue being involved with in good conscience.

A later email gave more detail. Nielsen-Harvey said she had concerns about allegations involving Steele-John and was upset by accusations that she was damaging the Greens’ reputation. She said the party had dismissed member involvement in choosing its senator despite the risk that the allegations could affect its Senate position.

She also objected to attempts to stop members discussing the matter. Nielsen-Harvey said she had contacted journalists but had not assisted them. Her resignation therefore reflected concerns about the allegations, the party’s response and pressure surrounding public discussion.

Seven active Greens members wrote to leader David Shoebridge demanding an independent investigation into allegations made by party members. They alleged that Steele-John had made multiple inappropriate comments to women over the past decade. The demand triggered a formal political response.

Steele-John referred the matter to the WA Greens for an independent investigation while rejecting the allegations. He said the claims lacked specifics, but that he was prepared to address any allegation made. His statement described the allegations as extremely serious.

On Thursday, he took leave from the Greens party room. On Friday morning, Shoebridge confirmed that Steele-John would also take a leave of absence from Parliament during the investigation. The article does not report the investigation’s outcome, so no finding against Steele-John is established in the supplied text.

A political party might manage media coverage internally to coordinate facts, protect people’s privacy and avoid contradictory public statements. It may also want to respond quickly during a controversy. These aims can be legitimate when complaints involve sensitive personal information.

The article describes a different risk. The dossier set out ways to shut down coverage, monitor social media discussions and screenshot comments by party members. It also recorded agreed wording that described the women’s matter as an “interpersonal” dispute. Those mechanisms can shift attention from examining allegations to controlling the narrative.

The article does not prove why every party official used the dossier or establish that internal management replaced an investigation in every case. It does show why independent review matters: a party handling its own reputation may face pressure to protect itself, while complainants and members may want a process outside ordinary political communications.

Political parties should separate support for members from judging allegations against them. They can protect privacy, avoid publishing unverified details and give the person accused a fair chance to respond. They should also record complaints and ensure people know how to raise concerns safely.

Where senior figures or party interests are involved, an independent investigation can reduce conflicts of interest. A fair process should examine specific claims, hear relevant people and avoid treating silence as proof that nothing happened. Communications staff should not replace investigators, and taxpayer-funded resources should serve public accountability rather than concealment.

As a general accountability principle, voters and taxpayers need confidence that parties address misconduct concerns honestly. The supplied article shows the tension clearly: the dossier focused on media control and monitoring members, while seven active members later demanded an independent investigation. It does not set out a complete party complaints framework.