One Nation Party Funds Used for $56,000 Shed on Private Property 2026

One Nation has admitted using party funds to build a $56,000 shed on James Ashby’s private property, sparking fresh controversy over political finance and transparency. The revelation, first reported by Guardian Australia, has raised questions about the use of party resources for personal benefit and the blurred lines between political and private business interests.

Background: The Shed on Ashby’s Property

Guardian Australia revealed on Monday that a company linked to One Nation – Small Batch Brewing Pty Ltd – was the purchaser of the shed on Ashby’s property, despite having no revenue stream and not being licensed to make or sell alcohol. Ashby, a senior figure in One Nation and a member of its national executive, is currently living in the shed on his Yeppoon property while renovations are undertaken on his main residence.

The shed, valued at $56,000, was built using funds that have now been confirmed as coming from One Nation’s party coffers. This admission came via an email sent to party members on Thursday night by the party’s general manager, Kelvin Morton.

One Nation’s Admission and Justification

In the email, Morton stated that party funds had been used to build the shed. He explained that the party’s national executive – on which Ashby sits as a member – had approved a “reinvestment package” into Small Batch Brewing to establish a micro distillery. The party hopes to generate revenue from this “unconventional” business venture as early as next year.

Morton wrote: “In an effort to minimise costs, including commercial rent and outgoings, it was unanimously agreed that One Nation would loan Small Batch Brewing the establishment costs for a shed and distilling equipment, which could be placed on land owned by a member of the executive.”

It remains unclear how much money has been lent to the entity for brewing equipment, and whether the loan arrangement was properly documented or disclosed in accordance with political funding regulations.

Key Takeaways

• One Nation used $56,000 of party funds to build a shed on James Ashby’s private property.
• The shed was purchased by Small Batch Brewing Pty Ltd, a company with no revenue and no alcohol licence.
• The party’s national executive approved a “reinvestment package” to establish a micro distillery.
• Ashby is living in the shed while his home undergoes renovations.
• Questions remain about the legality and transparency of using party funds for private property.

Political Funding Under Scrutiny

The use of party funds for a structure on private property raises significant concerns about compliance with electoral laws. In Australia, political donations and party finances are regulated to ensure they are used for legitimate political purposes. Using such funds for personal assets could potentially breach these rules.

Legal experts suggest that if the shed is considered a gift or loan to Ashby or his company, it may need to be declared as a donation or benefit. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) requires disclosure of gifts and loans above certain thresholds, and failure to do so can result in penalties.

One Nation’s explanation that the shed is part of a business venture may not satisfy regulators if the primary beneficiary is a party executive. The lack of a licence to produce alcohol further complicates the legitimacy of the venture.

Comparison: Political Funding Rules vs. One Nation’s Actions

Reactions and Implications

The admission has drawn criticism from political opponents and transparency advocates. They argue that it demonstrates a lack of accountability and potential misuse of party funds. One Nation has defended the move as a strategic investment to reduce costs and generate future income.

The party’s leader, Pauline Hanson, has not yet commented publicly on the matter. However, the controversy is likely to intensify scrutiny on One Nation’s financial practices and internal governance.

This incident also highlights broader issues in Australian politics regarding the regulation of party finances and the need for stricter enforcement. It may prompt calls for reform to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

FAQ