Internal communications from the highest levels of Australia’s One Nation party have surfaced, revealing that the organization’s general manager, Kelvin Morton, referred to candidate David Farley as an “asshole” just days before Farley secured a historic victory in the Farrer byelection. The leaked text messages, which have sent shockwaves through the right-wing populist party, provide a rare glimpse into the volatile relationship between the party’s administrative leadership and its elected representatives. Morton, who was specifically recruited to modernize the party’s vetting procedures and bring corporate discipline to its ranks, expressed deep frustration with the candidate selection process even as Farley was on the verge of winning a pivotal seat in May.
The timing of the messages is particularly significant, occurring during a period of intense media scrutiny regarding Farley’s political history. Reports had surfaced in the Sydney Morning Herald suggesting internal party friction over Farley’s previous, and allegedly undeclared, support for the Labor Party. Responding to these reports in a series of private texts, Morton dismissed the media coverage as “shit stirring” before turning his criticism toward the party’s own roster of candidates. Morton wrote that the party needed to “do way better” with its selection process, stating, “we need to stop finding these assholes … or letting them find us.”
Internal Communications Reveal Deep Fractures
The leaked correspondence underscores a paradox at the heart of One Nation’s recent electoral success. While David Farley was campaigning to become a "dedicated One Nation MP," his own general manager was privately questioning his character and loyalty. In the texts, Morton suggested that the media pressure might actually serve to bind Farley closer to the party’s platform, noting that Farley had “sworn allegiance” in response to internal concerns. Morton further speculated that if Farley were to "jump ship" after the election, he would appear to be a “completely untrustworthy snake” and would find his political career "ruined forever."
In response to the revelation of these messages, a spokesperson for One Nation defended Farley’s current standing within the party, describing him as a committed member of the parliamentary team. However, the spokesperson notably did not deny the authenticity of Morton’s comments, instead stating that the remarks "do not reflect the view of the party." In a sharp pivot, the spokesperson redirected the party’s ire toward the source of the leak, declaring that the “only untrustworthy snake is the person who leaked the text messages.” This defensive posture highlights the internal paranoia that often plagues minor parties when private disputes become public fodder.
The tension between Farley and the party leadership has not been limited to private text messages. Since taking his seat in Parliament, Farley has occasionally drifted from the party’s rigid policy positions, leading to public rebukes from his own colleagues. A major point of contention arose when Farley suggested that One Nation’s migration policies were not fundamentally different from those of the current Labor government, particularly regarding the rural workforce. The party was forced to issue a public correction, asserting that its stance on "net overseas migration" remains a cornerstone of its platform and is distinct from the government’s approach.
The Irony of the Professionalization Drive
Kelvin Morton’s appointment in February was heralded by party insiders as the beginning of a new, more "professional" era for One Nation. Morton, who describes himself on professional networking sites as a “strategic business transformation leader,” brought a resume boasting experience with major global corporations. His mandate from the party’s national executive was clear: build a “professional, scalable, and legally robust organization” capable of achieving a major victory at the next general election. Central to this mission was the implementation of a rigorous new vetting process designed to filter out controversial or unreliable candidates—a problem that has historically led to the collapse of One Nation’s parliamentary blocs in various states.
The irony of the situation is not lost on political observers. Morton was in his position as general manager when Farley was preselected, meaning Farley was one of the first high-profile candidates to pass through the very vetting system Morton was hired to oversee. That Morton would refer to his own successful candidate as an “asshole” and a potential “snake” suggests that the new vetting process may be failing to bridge the gap between the party’s administrative goals and its political realities. Instead of fostering unity, the drive for corporate-style discipline appears to have exacerbated existing cultural clashes between the party’s grassroots volunteers and its new executive leadership.
Escalating Tensions in the Lilley Branch
Beyond the friction with federal MPs, Morton has also become embroiled in a bitter dispute with local party officials in Queensland. Documents reveal that Morton recently initiated a federal intervention into the Lilley branch in Brisbane, one of the party’s most active and successful local chapters. This intervention involved the summary removal of the entire committee of volunteers, a move that has sparked allegations of heavy-handedness and a lack of procedural fairness.
The conflict in Lilley reportedly began with a disagreement over access to promotional materials. Mark McGuire, the branch coordinator, clashed with Morton after attempting to obtain policy flyers for a local event. Morton subsequently suspended McGuire’s membership, accusing him of removing materials from the party’s Brisbane headquarters without authorization and acting disrespectfully toward staff. Morton informed McGuire that his suspension would remain in place until a "formal written apology" was received. This move prompted a walkout by other volunteers, including branch president Deb Dalton, who informed head office that the committee would cease its efforts in protest of McGuire’s treatment.
Financial Disputes and the $12,000 Question
The situation in Brisbane escalated further when Morton accused the Lilley branch of financial non-compliance. In a letter to the branch president, Morton accepted the committee’s "resignation"—despite the members claiming they were only striking—and announced that the Federal Executive would take direct control of the branch’s management. He specifically demanded the transfer of $12,000 raised at a local fundraising dinner held last year, asserting that branches are "strictly prohibited from maintaining independent bank accounts."
Morton’s letter warned that the ongoing membership of the committee members was contingent upon the "full and transparent return" of all party property and the $12,000 in question. However, Mark McGuire has publicly disputed Morton’s version of events, claiming the money was never in the branch’s physical possession. According to McGuire, the funds were collected through a centralized digital ticketing system, meaning the money should have flowed directly into the party’s central accounts. "He’s got it wrong," McGuire said. "The question is, where’s the 12 grand? He needs to show the whole of the branch where the money is."
This financial dispute mirrors broader criticisms leveled at One Nation regarding its management of party funds. Recently, the party faced scrutiny over the use of $56,000 in party money to construct a shed on the private property of James Ashby, a senior advisor to party leader Pauline Hanson. While the party maintains all expenditures are legitimate and compliant with electoral laws, the recurring theme of financial centralized control versus local branch autonomy continues to create friction.
Policy Divergence and Political Fallout
The "asshole" comment and the subsequent branch infighting come at a delicate time for One Nation. The party is attempting to position itself as a reliable alternative to the Coalition, with some figures, such as former National Party leader Barnaby Joyce, suggesting the possibility of future cooperation or supply-and-confidence deals. However, senior Liberal Party members have largely dismissed these claims, describing them as a "figment of imagination." The internal chaos revealed by the Morton leaks only serves to reinforce the narrative that One Nation remains an unstable partner for traditional political alliances.
For David Farley, the revelation of Morton’s private disdain creates a difficult path forward in Parliament. While he remains a member of the One Nation team, the knowledge that his own party’s general manager viewed him with such skepticism before he even took office may impact his influence within the party room. Furthermore, the public nature of the "untrustworthy snake" comment—whether directed at the leaker or used as a warning to Farley—highlights a culture of distrust that could hamper the party’s ability to present a united front to the electorate.
As One Nation prepares for the next general election, the "Morton era" of professionalization is proving to be as tumultuous as the periods that preceded it. The party’s official stance is that branch donations are managed through a "microsite" and that funds are "quarantined for localized campaigns," yet the persistent disputes over money and candidate loyalty suggest a deep-seated disconnect. Whether Morton’s corporate approach can ultimately stabilize the party or if it will lead to further fractures remains the central question for the future of the organization. For now, the image of a "professional, scalable" party remains overshadowed by leaked insults and local branch revolts.
