Ross McRae’s Army Service Was Called Into Question. Here’s What We Found.
Claims questioning the One Nation candidate’s military service were circulated to a large social media audience. The Pineapple Express examined those claims and found that McRae’s Army service was genuine. But the allegation suggesting otherwise is still being repeated.
One Nation candidate Ross McRae served in the Australian Army for approximately a decade, despite claims circulated online casting doubt on whether his military service existed.
The allegation was promoted by leftwing political social media page Toilet Paper Australia after McRae was announced as One Nation’s candidate for Bellarine in Victoria.
The page published an image of McRae alongside the words:
“He says he had the ‘privilege of serving in the Australian Army’ from 1995-2005…
…which is weird, as there’s no record of a Ross McRae ever serving in the Army during that period of time.”
A screenshot from Toilet Paper Australia’s X account. Picture: Social media platform X
For veterans, accusations surrounding fabricated or embellished military service carry particular weight. Claims of service should be capable of scrutiny, and people who falsely represent their military history should expect to be challenged.
But that scrutiny carries an equally important responsibility to get the facts right.
The Pineapple Express contacted McRae directly after becoming aware of the allegation and asked him to clarify his military history. Rather than accepting either side’s version of events, we sought information capable of establishing what actually occurred.
McRae responded on the record.
“I served in the Australian Army from 1995 to 2005, a period of approximately 10 years,” McRae told The Pineapple Express.
“I commenced my Army service in 1995 in the Infantry Corps, including service with the 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (4 RAR).
“In 1998, I transferred to the Royal Australian Corps of Signals, where I continued serving until 2005.”
McRae said his service included both full-time and Reserve components and that he separated from the Army at the rank of corporal.
His service also included an operational deployment to East Timor.
Ross McRae during his deployment to East Timor. Picture: Facebook
“I take my military service seriously having deployed with 5/7 RAR to East Timor as a Signaller and would not knowingly misrepresent it,” McRae said.
“I am therefore disappointed that an allegation that I did not serve appears to have been circulated without first establishing the facts.”
McRae offered to provide documentation substantiating his service, with sensitive information including his service number redacted where appropriate.
McRae also addressed the allegation publicly, posting photographs from his time in uniform and providing further details of his Army career. He said he joined at 18, initially served in Infantry with 4 RAR before transferring to Signals, deployed to East Timor with 5/7 RAR and spent six months at Rifle Company Butterworth in Malaysia.
The question then becomes how an allegation casting doubt on that service came to be presented to a large social media audience in the first place.
Material circulated by Toilet Paper Australia relied in part on an assertion that there was “no trace” of McRae serving during the relevant period in National Archives defence personnel records.
That claim sounds compelling until the limitations of Australia’s publicly accessible military records are considered.
The National Archives of Australia states that records of service after the Second World War are held by both the National Archives and the Department of Defence.
Its own guidance specifically addresses situations where post-WWII service records cannot be located through RecordSearch, directing researchers to submit a “Defence service after WWII” enquiry.
The Archives’ NameSearch system contains categories for post-WWII and peacetime service, but that does not make it a comprehensive publicly searchable register of every Australian who has served in the modern ADF.
The distinction is critical.
A person’s name failing to appear in a public National Archives search does not establish that the person never served.
Yet an apparent absence of a publicly searchable record was used to cast doubt on McRae’s decade of Army service before a large online audience simply to undermine McRae’s credibility as a One Nation candidate.
The post was later deleted when the real facts came to light. Picture: X
The consequences of that allegation are still visible.
When the Bellarine Times recently published a story about McRae’s candidacy, members of the public were continuing to repeat the claim.
One commenter explicitly cited Toilet Paper Australia before repeating its assertion that there was supposedly “no record” of McRae serving in the Australian Army between 1995 and 2005.
Another asked whether McRae was the candidate who had “claimed to have served” but was instead an IT employee.
At the time the comments were captured, the first had attracted 78 reactions.
That demonstrates the problem with publishing serious allegations to a large audience before the underlying facts have been adequately established.
Comments under the Ballarine Times post show the false information being shared. Picture: Facebook
A post can be deleted. It can disappear from someone’s feed. It can be overtaken by the next political controversy.
The allegation it created can remain.
Screenshots are shared. Comments are repeated. People who saw the original allegation may never see the information that subsequently corrects it.
That is why The Pineapple Express has chosen to publicly correct the record.
Our involvement in this matter is not an endorsement of Ross McRae, One Nation or any of McRae’s political positions.
This should not be a partisan issue.
Australians are entitled to support or oppose McRae’s politics as they see fit. They are entitled to scrutinise his policies, his candidacy and statements he makes while seeking public office.
His military service, however, is a question of fact.
If McRae had fabricated a decade of Australian Army service, that would itself have been a legitimate matter of public interest. But where a person did serve, an allegation suggesting otherwise deserves the same scrutiny.
This is also where Toilet Paper Australia’s handling of the matter raises serious questions.
Its original post was not simply asking whether McRae’s service could be verified. It told its audience:
“there’s no record of a Ross McRae ever serving in the Army during that period of time.”
There is an important difference between saying “we have been unable to independently verify this person’s service” and using the absence of a result from an incomplete public database to cast doubt on whether that service occurred.
Political commentary does not remove the responsibility to properly establish serious factual claims about identifiable people before broadcasting them to a large audience.
Toilet Paper Australia is also not an insignificant private account.
Its chief executive, Raushaan Seychell, has participated directly in Australian political media, including interviewing Treasurer Jim Chalmers following the 2026 Budget.
In an interview with The National Account earlier this year, Seychell and another Toilet Paper Australia administrator discussed how material published by the organisation is verified.
Seychell also said of Toilet Paper Australia:
“We’re not journalists. We don’t do journalism.”
The publication identified Seychell as CEO of Toilet Paper Australia.
Whether Toilet Paper Australia considers itself journalism, political commentary, advocacy or simply social media content does not change the consequences of what it publishes.
An allegation concerning someone’s military service does not become less serious because it appeared on Instagram rather than in a newspaper.
The Pineapple Express attempted to contact Toilet Paper Australia directly through its verified Instagram account.
At the time, the account displayed approximately 132,000 followers.
We asked the organisation to provide an email address so that we could contact it regarding the matter and provide an opportunity to respond.
Several days later, no response had been received.
We also attempted to contact Seychell through the Instagram account publicly identifying him as CEO of Toilet Paper Australia.
Had Toilet Paper Australia responded, we intended to ask what evidence was relied upon before publishing the allegation, whether McRae had been contacted before publication, whether the limitations of National Archives RecordSearch had been considered, and whether the organisation continued to stand by the implication that McRae had not served.
At the time of publication, Toilet Paper Australia had not responded to our attempt to establish contact.
Should it subsequently provide a response, The Pineapple Express will consider that response and update this article where appropriate.
Political candidates should be scrutinised. So should those doing the scrutinising. The same position would apply regardless of the person’s politics.
When a veteran’s legitimate service is unfairly called into question, The Pineapple Express will stand with them regardless of which side of the political aisle they stand on.
#TPE 🍍🍍🍍
