The "Ditch the Witch" Campaign Against Victoria's Premier: What It Reveals About Political Spending and Gendered Attacks

A $105,000 advertising campaign using the slogan "Ditch the Witch" against Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has drawn sharp criticism from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Franco Puleo — owner of the Gotham City brothel in South Melbourne — admitted to co-funding the campaign alongside other local business owners. The campaign included billboards and, according to the Herald Sun, a mobile advertising truck seen circling Melbourne's central business district on a Friday night.

Who Is Paying for This, and Why

Puleo's admission revealed what had been an anonymous operation. He confirmed that he and other local business figures pooled money to run the ads. Business owners operating in sectors that need state government licenses and approvals have long had disputes with Victorian Labor governments. Puleo hasn't publicly explained his specific complaints beyond his decision to fund the campaign.

The campaign raises a legal question: does it comply with Victoria's electoral finance disclosure rules? Campaign finance law distinguishes between ads about issues and ads targeting specific candidates. Spending this large aimed at a sitting premier during an election cycle sits in murky legal territory. The Victorian Electoral Commission will likely scrutinize whether the funders should have registered the campaign and disclosed their identities.

An Old Slogan Gets Reused

"Ditch the Witch" is not new to Australian politics. The phrase was used prominently against Julia Gillard during her time as Prime Minister — most famously at a 2011 Canberra rally where Opposition Leader Tony Abbott stood in front of placards with that slogan and similar language targeting her gender. That moment became a turning point in Australian discussions about political misogyny. Gillard responded with a 2012 parliamentary speech on the subject that gained international attention.

Gillard issued a statement on June 8, 2026, saying she was "disgusted" by the reuse of the slogan against Allan. Albanese also publicly condemned the campaign. Both responded swiftly and without hesitation — placing themselves clearly on record.

Allan had already faced gendered abuse before this campaign. In 2025, a fire truck at a rally carried the phrase "ditch the b*tch" directed at her. That incident drew criticism at the time but did not attract national political attention the way this campaign has.

The pattern matters. We have seen this cycle before — a slogan tested against one female leader, absorbed into political language, then recycled against the next. The language works less as a policy criticism and more as a signal: it tells the target and the audience that the attack is personal, gendered, and meant to delegitimise rather than debate.

When Gillard faced this language, it took years before political leaders broadly agreed that the language itself was the problem. The speed of the bipartisan response this time — from Albanese and Gillard within the same news cycle — suggests that consensus has shifted. Both leaders moved quickly to signal their rejection of the tactic.

The Wider Political Context

This campaign does not stand alone. Victoria is heading toward a state election under a Labor government, while its federal counterpart faces serious electoral pressure from a surging One Nation.

Polling from early and mid-2026 tells a consistent story of Labor under strain at the federal level. A Newspoll for The Australian in January 2026 showed One Nation at 32%, compared to Labor's 22%. A Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in March 2026 had One Nation at 29% and Labor at 24%. A YouGov/Sky News poll from late March put One Nation at 29% and Labor at 27%. By April, another YouGov/Sky News survey showed both parties level at 27%. The most recent AFR/Redbridge/Accent Research poll put One Nation at 31%, Labor at 28%, and the Coalition at 20%.

The same poll found that 63% of voters said Australia was heading in the wrong direction, with pollsters linking this to the federal budget's reception.

These are national numbers, not Victorian state numbers — state politics work differently. But the mood they capture — broad frustration with Labor governance — creates an opening for anti-government campaigns of all kinds, including unconventional ones funded by private business owners rather than parties.

What Happens Now

The immediate consequences will unfold on several fronts.

For Puleo and the other business owners, publicly admitting to funding a political campaign of this scale will almost certainly trigger formal inquiries into whether they followed disclosure rules. The Victorian Electoral Commission has investigative powers and can refer cases for further action.

For Allan, the moment cuts both ways. She faces the political challenge of dealing with genuine anti-government sentiment that the campaign taps into. But the gendered nature of the attack has brought support from powerful voices at the federal level. Whether that support actually helps her politically — or whether frustration with her government's performance continues to erode her position — remains to be seen.

For Gillard, stepping back into domestic politics on this issue is deliberate. Since leaving office, she has focused on gender equity in global education through the Global Partnership for Education. Her decision to speak out again on gendered political attacks signals that she views this as important enough to break her general silence on Australian politics.

The bigger picture: a $105,000 campaign using mobile billboards and a historically charged slogan represents an unusual example of political spending that operates outside party structures. It will become a reference point for how private actors can deploy political ads without party involvement — and how quickly such campaigns attract public controversy and regulatory scrutiny once their funding sources become public.

The legal, political, and cultural questions raised by this campaign will take much longer to resolve than the news cycle that exposed it.