Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has unveiled one of its most controversial law-and-order proposals ahead of Victoria’s November state election, arguing that judges who repeatedly hand down sentences considered too lenient by the public should face the possibility of losing their positions.
Appearing on Melbourne radio station 3AW with broadcaster Tom Elliott alongside newly appointed Victorian leader Warren Pickering, Hanson said One Nation would seek to establish an independent body capable of reviewing judicial performance where sentencing outcomes consistently failed to meet community expectations.
According to Hanson, the current system provides almost no practical mechanism for holding judges accountable for sentencing decisions once they have been appointed.
“I’ve advocated for an independent board to be set up,” Hanson said.
“So if the sentences handed down by a judge are not in line with what the public believe in, then they can be called before the board, be made accountable, and you’re going to be put up to losing your job.”
She added that the community should have a stronger voice in ensuring criminal penalties reflect public expectations.
“I think the people have a right to say, ‘Hey, listen mate, you’re not giving us the sentence that befits the crime.’”
The proposal represents a significant departure from Victoria’s existing judicial framework.
Under current arrangements, Supreme Court and County Court judges generally remain in office until reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 unless removed for proven misbehaviour or incapacity through a parliamentary process.
Individual sentencing decisions are not, in themselves, grounds for dismissal. Victoria’s Judicial Commission investigates complaints about judicial conduct, but it does not act as an appeal body for sentences simply because members of the public disagree with the outcome.
One Nation argues that this framework leaves judges effectively insulated from meaningful public accountability.
Warren Pickering said the party intended to place crime and community safety at the centre of its Victorian election campaign, with judicial accountability forming a key element of that agenda.
Although the party has not yet released its complete Victorian policy platform, Pickering indicated that law-and-order measures would feature prominently when the full package is unveiled later this month.
During the 3AW interview, Pickering also criticised what he described as “bleeding heart judges” and argued that repeat offenders should face tougher consequences rather than being repeatedly released into the community.
He said One Nation wanted to end what he characterised as a “tag and release” approach to criminal justice, maintaining that stronger sentencing and greater judicial accountability would improve community safety.
Host Tom Elliott added to the discussion by saying that a judge had privately told him the Victorian judiciary was “so overwhelmingly left wing” that many judges did not believe imprisonment should be used as frequently as the public expected.
That comment reflected Elliott’s account of a private conversation and was not independently verified during the interview.
The proposal comes as crime continues to dominate Victoria’s political agenda ahead of the November election.
Both the Labor Government and the Liberal-National Coalition have announced tougher crime initiatives in recent months, while One Nation is seeking to distinguish itself by advocating more extensive structural reforms to the justice system.
The party argues that many Victorians have lost confidence in sentencing outcomes, particularly for repeat violent offenders.
Supporters of tougher sentencing frequently contend that existing penalties do not adequately reflect community expectations or provide sufficient deterrence.
They argue that judges should be more directly accountable where sentencing patterns consistently diverge from public confidence in the justice system.
Critics of proposals such as One Nation’s, however, have long argued that judicial independence is one of the central principles of Australia’s constitutional system.
Under that principle, judges are expected to decide cases according to legislation and legal precedent rather than public opinion or political pressure.
Legal organisations have historically warned that allowing judges to be removed because of unpopular sentencing decisions could undermine judicial independence and potentially influence how courts decide criminal matters.
Those critics argue that appeals against sentences should continue to be determined through the established court system rather than through political or public review mechanisms.
Any attempt to implement One Nation’s proposal would therefore require significant legislative reform and would almost certainly generate substantial constitutional and legal debate regarding the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary.
The proposal also forms part of One Nation’s broader effort to expand its presence in Victoria.
The party recently appointed Warren Pickering as its Victorian leader and announced its first group of candidates ahead of the state election, promising policies focused on crime, government integrity, education and cost-of-living pressures.
Recent polling has suggested One Nation is attracting increased support among voters concerned about crime, immigration and housing affordability, encouraging the party to campaign across almost every lower house electorate while fielding candidates in all upper house regions.
Whether One Nation’s judicial accountability proposal gains broader political support remains uncertain.
Neither the Victorian Labor Government nor the Liberal-National Coalition has endorsed removing judges over sentencing decisions, and both major parties have generally supported maintaining judicial independence while pursuing sentencing reform through legislation.
Nevertheless, One Nation believes the proposal will resonate with voters who feel the criminal justice system has become disconnected from community expectations.
As Victoria’s election campaign gathers momentum, debate over crime, sentencing and judicial accountability is expected to remain one of the campaign’s most closely watched policy battlegrounds.
