Some people enter public life claiming to fight for integrity.
They speak the language of ethics, accountability, and reform.
They brand themselves as warriors against misinformation.
And for a moment, they seem like the real deal.
But over time – sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly – their conduct shifts.
Their alliances change.
Their targets narrow.
And what’s left is not a reformer, but a reactionary.
This is a story about how that happens.
⚖️ The Rise: Ethics, Law, and a Public Stand
Years ago, a man on the inside of one of Australia’s major political parties took a bold public stand.
He was a lawyer, a party insider, and a self-described ethics advocate. He launched legal action against one of the wealthiest political actors in the country – a mining billionaire who flooded the 2019 and 2022 elections with misleading advertising.
The case was controversial. Risky. Public.
And the man who brought it forward? He paid a price for challenging power, even within his own party.
At first, observers thought: here’s someone willing to defend democracy, even at personal cost.
But that’s not how the story ends.
🔄 The Turn: From Ethics Crusader to Culture Warrior
After being ousted by his own party and humiliated by factional rivals, something shifted.
The principled tone gave way to something more erratic – bitter, tribal, and performative.
He began lashing out at figures who represented integrity and climate action – particularly those from wealthier backgrounds who dared to support progressive independents. He targeted one prominent clean energy advocate repeatedly, framing him as a traitor to his class – a deeply revealing accusation.
Online, he escalated:
- Accusing critics of being “spiteful”
- Attempting to intimidate people with screenshots from obscure old bios
- Blocking and flouncing instead of engaging with scrutiny
- Repeating lines that echoed the rhetoric of AstroTurf groups with deep ties to fossil fuel lobbyists
He began sounding less like a truth-teller, and more like a mid-tier troll with a LinkedIn.
🕸️ The Network: Shadow Groups and Silent Funding
Alongside this shift came increasingly obvious signs of ideological alignment with one of the most manipulative forces in Australian politics: Advance.
Advance is not a grassroots movement. It’s a professionally run, well-funded campaign machine with a simple mission – undermine climate action, discredit Indigenous voices, and destroy progressive independents.
The man in question didn’t wear their logo. He didn’t need to.
His talking points matched theirs.
His targets mirrored theirs.
And when he ran for office again – in a seat previously held by a moderate – his messaging felt eerily familiar.
He lost. But the resemblance lingered.
🧬 So What Makes Someone Turn?
Was it resentment?
The thirst for relevance?
A need to stay in the arena, even after being kicked out the front door?
The seduction of grievance politics is powerful – especially for people who feel betrayed by the institutions they once served.
But more than that, the slow reveal of behaviour over time tells us the truth:
Eventually, people show you who they really are.
Not in their slogans.
Not in their lawsuits.
But in how they treat others when they think no one’s watching.
In the people they attack – and the ones they protect.
In the silence they demand, and the scrutiny they fear.
🧭 The Lesson
Integrity isn’t a pose. It’s a pattern.
Anyone can claim to fight for truth.
But it’s how they behave when truth threatens their ego, their business, or their alliances – that’s what matters.
Some people start out fighting disinformation. Others end up spreading it.
And some do both – depending on whether they think it helps them win.
Also by Lachlan McKenzie:
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Mark Latham fits that profile.
Almost…
OK I give in…..
I won’t be mentioning names. It could be anyone! Or could it? 😉
Rorting of the system is terrible. The bigger problem I believe though is the view that the public gain from bad, but essential reporting of misbehaviour. People love to badmouth others without being properly informed and then there are those who question public spending for social benefit. I run a small disability business for up to 20 clients. We do three nights respite four times a year for those who are eligible and weekly supports. I started my business during Covid when major providers had stopped some essential support and the clients and families were suffering. My clients love our team and we are told the supports we provide are better and more personable than bigger organisations can provide.
I think it is absurd that an OT has to be empployed to assess every time something is required. An example, during Covid I started Zoom sessions for group supports. One client with cerebral palsy needed an OT report which cost $1500 for a tablet that would cost $800, total cost to the NDIS $2300. At the time reviews required OT assessments with parents saying an OT was required to prove their child still had a disability. Crazy. Thank you for your article.
“I won’t be mentioning names. It could be anyone! Or could it?”
You’re talking about that bloke in Botswana, aren’t you? I knew it all along.
You caught me out Michael.
Meanwhile David, thanks for the comment and ,strangely, this article IS associated with the NDIS one.