One Nation’s Victorian leader Warren Pickering is facing fresh scrutiny less than three months before the state election after documents reportedly showed he was ordered by Victoria’s State Revenue Office to repay $13,500 from a first home owner grant.
The development comes as Mr Pickering and federal One Nation leader Pauline Hanson are already under pressure over separate historical allegations made by his former partner, including claims of illicit drug use during their long-term relationship — allegations Mr Pickering has rejected.
According to State Revenue Office notices obtained by The Australian, Mr Pickering was investigated over a first home owner grant associated with a property built in Mernda, in Melbourne’s outer north. A final notice dated January 4, 2010 reportedly demanded immediate repayment of $13,500 and warned that recovery action, potentially including proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court, could follow if the amount was not paid.
The State Revenue Office declined to discuss Mr Pickering’s individual circumstances with the newspaper because of taxpayer confidentiality.
There has been no public confirmation of whether Mr Pickering subsequently repaid the $13,500, and both he and One Nation reportedly declined to answer questions from The Australian about the status of the debt.
The reporting does not establish criminal wrongdoing by Mr Pickering. The issue is that a State Revenue Office demand was issued and the question of whether the money was later repaid remains publicly unanswered.
The reported dispute concerned a house constructed after land in Mernda was purchased in November 2005. The State Revenue Office later raised questions about previous property interests held by Mr Pickering’s then-partner, Jo Scott, according to the documents reported by The Australian.
That issue matters because Victorian first home owner grant eligibility rules do not look solely at the person whose name appears on an application.
The legislation in force around that period included eligibility tests relating to property previously owned by an applicant or their partner. Under the First Home Owner Grant Act, an applicant could be ineligible where either the applicant or their partner had previously held certain interests in residential property, depending on when the property was owned and whether it had been occupied as a home.
The State Revenue Office’s current guidance similarly requires applicants to disclose their spouse or partner and says a partner’s previous property ownership can affect eligibility even where that person is not named on the property title or grant application.
The existence of a previous property interest, however, does not automatically establish ineligibility in every case. The dates, nature of the ownership and whether the property was occupied are relevant under the legislation.
According to the newspaper’s report, the State Revenue Office wrote to Mr Pickering in September 2009 after identifying previous property interests associated with Ms Scott and later issued the $13,500 final demand.
Ms Scott has claimed Mr Pickering did not intend to repay the money and, to her knowledge, had not done so. That claim has not been independently established, and the State Revenue Office has not publicly disclosed what occurred after its 2010 demand.
The grant issue has surfaced during an already difficult week for Mr Pickering following a series of allegations made by Ms Scott about their relationship.
Ms Scott, who was Mr Pickering’s partner for about 18 years, has alleged that he regularly used illicit drugs, including crystal methamphetamine, during parts of their relationship.
The Australian reported that she supplied statutory declarations and what she said were handwritten letters and text messages from Mr Pickering to support her account. A separate person from their former social circle was also reported to have provided a statutory declaration alleging they witnessed Mr Pickering using ice on multiple occasions.
The material reportedly includes correspondence attributed to Mr Pickering referring to drug use and behaviour he described at the time as “sexual deviance”.
Mr Pickering has categorically rejected Ms Scott’s allegations.
In a statement issued before the reports were published, he described the claims as false and hurtful and challenged the reliability of his former partner’s account. One Nation’s lawyers also disputed the allegations and linked them to a long-running and difficult family dispute.
Mr Pickering has not publicly provided detailed answers addressing each of the reported letters, messages and drug-use allegations individually. However, One Nation has posted a statement on its social media.
The controversy has also raised questions about what One Nation knew before Senator Hanson elevated Mr Pickering to lead the party’s Victorian election campaign.
One Nation formally announced Mr Pickering as its Victorian state leader in August, with the party saying he would lead its campaign focused on crime, cost of living, energy, housing and health. He is also One Nation’s candidate for the lower-house seat of Pakenham.
The ABC reported when his leadership was announced that Mr Pickering, already One Nation’s Victorian state president, said the party intended to govern and planned an extensive field of candidates across the state.
But The Australian reports Ms Scott had contacted Senator Hanson’s parliamentary office well before that appointment.
According to the report, Ms Scott emailed Senator Hanson’s office in September 2025 with concerns about Mr Pickering. The office reportedly responded the following day asking her to resend an attachment that had been omitted.
Ms Scott reportedly contacted Senator Hanson’s office again in May 2026, this time raising the State Revenue Office correspondence concerning the first home owner grant.
She said she did not receive a substantive response to the second approach.
Those contacts have intensified questions about One Nation’s candidate-vetting process and whether Senator Hanson or senior officials examined the allegations before Mr Pickering was appointed Victorian leader.
Federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called on One Nation to disclose its correspondence with Ms Scott and explain when the party became aware of her claims.
Mr Taylor said Victorians deserved answers about when One Nation received the correspondence, what it did in response and how Mr Pickering was ultimately selected to lead the state campaign.
Senator Hanson has largely sought to draw a line under the controversy.
Speaking in Canberra, she described the allegations as a “personal matter” and said they had been put to Mr Pickering and denied.
She repeatedly declined to provide further details about the party’s vetting or say whether she had personally investigated the specific claims before his appointment.
One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce has taken a somewhat different approach, emphasising the possibility that people can move on from mistakes in their past.
After speaking with Mr Pickering, Mr Joyce told The Australian that he believed in “the redemption of the human spirit” and said people who acknowledged mistakes and changed their lives deserved recognition for doing so.
Mr Joyce and Senator Hanson have also pointed to Mr Pickering’s subsequent Australian Defence Force service.
Mr Pickering joined the Army and served as a combat engineer, and One Nation figures have argued his ability to enter and serve in the Defence Force should be considered when assessing his character.
Senator Hanson said the Defence Force conducts vetting and noted that Mr Pickering had been accepted and remained associated with the military. Mr Joyce similarly pointed to his Army service when questioned about his suitability for political leadership.
However, military recruitment or security vetting does not determine whether a political party has adequately investigated matters relevant to selecting a candidate or leader, and the controversy has continued despite those defences.
One Nation federal director James Ashby has also defended Mr Pickering, with comments suggesting people should not necessarily be permanently judged for mistakes made earlier in life. That position has attracted attention because Mr Pickering himself has denied the central allegations rather than acknowledged past drug use as described by Ms Scott.
The issue is politically sensitive because Mr Pickering is not simply another candidate.
One Nation selected him to front its Victorian campaign as the party seeks to expand its presence in state parliament. The party already has representation in Victoria’s upper house and has been campaigning heavily in outer-metropolitan and regional electorates.
Pakenham, where Mr Pickering is contesting the Legislative Assembly, is viewed as an important battleground. The outer south-eastern Melbourne electorate is being targeted by One Nation amid acute cost-of-living and mortgage pressures.
The controversy has consequently spilled into the broader Victorian election campaign.
Victorian Labor has sought to use the allegations to put pressure not only on One Nation but also on the Liberal Party over what could happen if neither major party secures a majority in November.
Labor ministers have argued voters should know whether the Liberals would negotiate with or rely on One Nation in a hung parliament.
The Victorian Liberals have rejected Labor’s attempt to link them to the controversy, saying their objective is to form a majority government. Liberal frontbencher Evan Mulholland has accused Labor of trying to distract voters from its own record.
The latest revelations come only weeks after Senator Hanson publicly launched Mr Pickering as the face of One Nation’s Victorian campaign.
One Nation’s own campaign material describes him as the leader who will take the party into the election and says it intends to campaign on restoring law and order, reducing living costs, changing energy policy, addressing housing affordability and reforming government.
That positioning means questions surrounding Mr Pickering’s background, the first home owner grant and the party’s vetting are likely to remain politically relevant rather than being confined to a private dispute.
There is currently no public evidence showing whether the $13,500 demanded by the State Revenue Office in 2010 remains outstanding.
Similarly, the drug-related allegations remain allegations strongly denied by Mr Pickering. No material cited in the current reporting establishes that he was convicted of a drug offence arising from the conduct alleged by his former partner.
What is established through One Nation’s own material is that Senator Hanson appointed Mr Pickering Victorian state leader on the eve of a campaign in which the party hopes to substantially increase its influence.
The Victorian Electoral Commission has confirmed the state election will be held on Saturday, 28 November 2026, with almost 4.7 million Victorians expected to be eligible to vote.
With fewer than three months until polling day, the immediate questions for Mr Pickering and One Nation are now straightforward: whether the first home owner grant repayment was ultimately settled, what party officials knew about the allegations before his elevation, and whether One Nation will release the correspondence that has become central to the dispute.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
