In our continuing series of Email Interviews with local candidates in the coming Federal Election we bring you Kerrie Tucker – the ACT Senate Candidate for The Greens.
Kerrie Tucker’s responses, in full and unedited, can be found below:
Q1. Provide a short (no greater and 200 word) employment application style Resume (CV), including what work you have done apart from being a politician or political staffer or party/union/lobby employee and what experience or qualifications do you have with regard to economic management?
Completed Karatane Mothercraft Nursing Training 1968, travelled and worked around Australia for a year or so, working wherever I could, included as cook on fishing boat, bar- work, nursing, farm hand and nanny. Travelled to Europe 1971, varied work in different countries including as waitress, farm hand, bar work, nanny, theatre production assistant, factory work, house maid. Returned to Australia 1974, employment after this included nursing, Field Worker for Family Day Care, farming, journal editor as well as voluntary work with early childhood and environmental organizations.
On economic credentials, in early years raised three children on a very modest income and managed small rural properties. Worked as a volunteer in small organizations –learned about fund raising and more about making every dollar count.. As an MLA in the Legislative Assembly for three terms participated in analysis, debates and committees related to financial management of the Territory, also a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. After resigning from the Assembly in 2004 worked as Executive Officer of ACT Shelter for a time, yet another role that required extremely careful money management, not only to balance the books, but to inspire others to make the most of limited financial resources.
Q2. What would you like to see as the first piece of legislative change brought about by your Government? What are your personal goals for your first year representing the ACT?
If elected, I’d do my best to help foster honest and accountable government through Senate processes. I would like to be part of a Greens balance of power which restored the Senate to its role as a House of Review which examined legislation in detail in collaboration with interested citizens, experts and community groups. I would like to have a role in reinvigorating and cleaning up our democracy, including restoring a frank and fearless public service and improving FOI practice. If I could choose a piece of legislation to get the new government off to a useful start, I’d want to ensure that every piece of legislation include a statement of the net greenhouse gas addition or reduction it would cause, and, if negative,
what the government would do to offset the net increase in emissions.
Q3. What private opinions do you hold which are different to those of your party? On which issues do you disagree with your Party’s stated position?
I agree with Greens policy positions, but also always have the right to vote in accordance with my conscience. I would not hesitate to cast a vote in the Senate differently to one or more of my colleagues if my conscience so dictated. If this occurred, I would fully explain my position to ACT voters and to the ACT Greens members.
Q4. Are you in favour of fixed election terms? Why or why not and if so what length of terms are you in favour of and why?
Yes. Leaving the timing of an election to the discretion of the ruling party promotes uncertainty and game playing in the third year. A four year fixed term would provide clarity and certainty for government, oppositions and Australians. The extra year would allow more time for policy to be prepared, legislated, and bedded down.
Q5. Do you think that it is important for the Prime Minister and their family to live in Canberra? Why or why not?
Yes. Canberra was chosen as the seat of federal democracy for a good reason – to balance the power of the traditionally most powerful states and reassure the other states that they would not be dominated by the big two. It allows the Prime Minister to foster a national focus detached from the intricacies of power in the big states. Thus it has symbolic and practical significance for our democracy.
Q6. Do you consider that making observations about the structure and makeup of the other major political party as beneficial to your own party’s role in the election?
On one level, the structure and makeup of the major parties is a matter for them, however if this structure has a damaging impact on our democracy I think it is valid to make it part of the political debate. It could possibly have a beneficial effect depending on whether people listened and agreed!
Q7. What are your thoughts on the permanent trading of water entitlements, as per the National Water Initiative
(http://www.dpmc.gov.au/water_reform/nwi.cfm), and do you believe that giving water a tradable, economic value is really the best method to ensure that this scarce Australian resource will be utilised sensibly in the future?
Inflows to the Murray Darling inflows are at their lowest in 116 years, and irrigation allocations are at an all time low. We are facing a tragedy for our communities and the environment,
We need immediate action address over-allocation. We need to support landholders and basin communities transition to sustainable enterprises.
The Greens want a ‘ national review of the social, economic and ecological impacts of Australian water allocations and water trading systems’, and a moratorium on the further extension of water trading systems until publication of this review. (See here ). I support this policy.
Q8. Canberra has a large student population and Govt funding per capita for public education facilities seems to be on the slide with there being an apparent shift towards encouraging more people to enter the private education sector. What are your thoughts on this?
What initiatives would you pursue in regard to HECS fees, full fee paying uni courses, increasing/decreasing Austudy payments, funding for education/R&D/communications infrastructure and assistance or encouragement to private sector research and technology companies?
What measures will you take to ensure the best possible education is
available to all Australians?
In Australia we provide a high quality school education system that serves most children well. However, the system is not equitable – it works best for children who are already advantaged and worst for children who are disadvantaged. These are the children who consistently have lower levels of educational achievement than others.
We know the groups of children who most need help – children from low income households, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, some children who are learning English as a second language and children with disabilities. If we are serious about making education more equitable and lifting levels of educational achievement for all students, funding must be directed to these children.
Also a comprehensive national program to provide free access to quality preschool education for all 3 and 4 year olds would repay the investment many times over.
The Greens’ policy is to ‘abolish fees for educational services at public universities for Australian students, repeal VSU, forgive HECS debts, provide a means tested living allowance for all full-time students and increase funding for research capacity of Australian universities (and) increase the proportion of research funding allocated to research for the public good’.
To scrap HECS and return to a situation where university education is free
for domestic students will cost $2.5 billion each year. To put this in perspective the government’s personal tax cuts from the last two budgets are costing over $15 billion each year, and now an extrs $34b has been promised. So we could all enjoy tax cuts and make university free
Here’s another way to look at it: the Federal Government spent over $9.8 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry in 2005-06 whilst spending less than $5 billion on higher education.
Q9. What is the single most pressing issue in your electorate (local electorate issue – not a broader issue that has an impact on your electorate) and how do you plan on addressing it?
Supporting Canberra, as the National Capital, to lead the way as a sustainable city, with best practice development in the built environment, rigorous protection of the natural environment and support for of our knowledge economy.
Apart from the symbolic importance of the National Capital leading the way, the Federal Government has a particular responsibility to contribute to infrastructure in Canberra. This is because its own planning decisions, such as privatisation of the airport and development of sites around Canberra have huge implications for ACT infrastructure. Also the rising cost of fuel, the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and the disproportionate impact of transport costs on lower income people, who often live the furthest from their workplaces, means local transport must be a priority. .
The planning authorities and planning committees of the ACT Legislative Assembly and Federal Parliament could work collaboratively to improve the current processes and outcomes.
Federal funding should not just be invested in roads, but in rapid transit systems such as light rail. Dispersed employment options are also important and the federal Government can definitely play a role in facilitating this outcome. http://kerrietucker.org.au/2007/11/05/fast-trains-and-light-rail-urgent-action-on-climate-change-and-oil/
Q10. Suppose you and I are stuck in an elevator for 5 minutes. You know nothing about me other than I’m enrolled to vote in your electorate. What do you say to convince me to vote for you?
I doubt that would be the topic of conversation! More likely the mechanics of lifts would be of interest! Or why doesn’t the dam phone work! And then we might talk about Telstra for a while – the 5 minutes would just fly!
****
[edited out for your reading pleasure]
-sarcasm- Well that’s a mature responce to a political debate. -/sarcasm-
It’s interesting considering that here in the ACT the only real contest is between Tucker and Humphries in the Senate (with both House of Reps and the first senate seat all extremely safe Labor seats) that Humphries was the first to respond and Tucker leaves her run until the last week.
I wonder if her responses will also get CT coverage?
Curious that there is no mention of the $20,000 donation the Greens took from the forrestry and mining union.
Samuel Gordon-Stewart said :
That sounds familiar…I wonder what Bob McMullan had to say on the subject?
Q2. What would you like to see as the first piece of legislative change brought about by your Government? What are your personal goals for your first year representing the ACT?
The first piece of legislative change I would like to see is the repeal of Workchoices and the restoration of fairness in Australian Workplaces.
At a local level I would like to see a decentralisation of Commonwealth Government departments to Gungahlin, to ease the demand for parking facilities in Civic and reduce the level of traffic to the city centre.
I will also be working for an upgrade of the roads servicing Canberra International Airport.
That’s taking the “vote for his party, her party or her party” nonsense just a bit too far isn’t it? And they didn’t even copy from the coalition!
“repeal VSU” – so the Greens believe in compulsory unionism.
Why are students the only people that everyone thinks it is reasonable to force to join a union? Or is it just another tax on students?
Both Labor and the Greens believe in this because they know that they have a good access to inexperienced and highly idealistic people. Its a great breeding ground for their politic.
Give people everyone choice or be fair and honest and compel everyone join a union.
“I agree with Greens policy positions, but also always have the right to vote in accordance with my conscience. I would not hesitate to cast a vote in the Senate differently to one or more of my colleagues if my conscience so dictated. If this occurred, I would fully explain my position to ACT voters and to the ACT Greens members.”
Didn’t answer the question – very clever and tricky to coin a phrase.
RiotACT has published an answer to question 2 which is not Kerrie’s answer. Her answer was, and is:
“If elected, I’d do my best to help foster honest and accountable government through Senate processes. I would like to be part of a Greens balance of power which restored the Senate to its role as a House of Review which examined legislation in detail in collaboration with interested citizens, experts and community groups. I would like to have a role in reinvigorating and cleaning up our democracy, including restoring a frank and fearless public service and improving FOI practice. If I could choose a piece of legislation to get the new government off to a useful start, I’d want to ensure that every piece of legislation include a statement of the net greenhouse gas addition or reduction it would cause, and, if negative, what the government would do to offset the net increase in emissions.”
I request that you correct your piece accordingly.
Regards,
Margo Kingston, campaign adviser
[Ed. Sorry Kerry/Margo. dont know how that happend. I did a cut and paste. Its now been corrected.]
To BeyondThought:
Yes, Kerrie has accepted a donation for a union (why that’s curious I don’t know, since she wasn’t asked about it). How do you know? She declared the donation. Under federal law, donations need only be disclosed WELL AFTER an election, making them pretty silly if the aim is to ensure an informed vote. In addition, the big 2 parties engage in systematic donation disclosure avoidance schemes to avoid their obligations to fully inform the people.
In contrast, the Green continuously disclose their donations, as a matter of principle.The Greens also voluntarily disclose all donations over $1,500, notwithstanding Gary Humphries’ Government recently raising the maximum for secret donations to $10,000.
On ABC local radio, Gary Humphries refused to match Kerrie’s transparency.
Do you find that ‘interesting’, BeyondThought?
Hi Margo,
Why do I find it interesting, simply because it smacks of a lack of integrity. Many find it hypocritical of the Greens to slam the coal industry, slam the timber industry but accept money from the same sectors, where’s the principles behind that? I’m some people can rationalise it in your own minds, but to the bulk of us ordinary souls it’s just all a bit beyond belief. At the end of the day the Greens are not all as innocent as you claim, they too will sacrifice principles when it’s convenient.
Oh, and the Greens don’t disclose donations as “as a matter of principle” as all political parties registered in the ACT are required to under local legislation. It’s no different from Labor, Liberals and any other locally registered party.
N.B. My donations comment related to amounts over $1,500
and the libs have dirty filthy christian groups such as the exclusive bretheren backing them.. which is far worse than the greens recieving donations from industries they target..
BeyondThought, you’re wrong. The Greens Australia wide have the donation disclosure policy I describe, and have and are pressing hard for tighter laws on the subject. Where’s the lack of integrity mate?
First, you’re assuming the Greens have a higher bar than the rest, so why spend your time trying to beat them down to the big party’s level. Ever thought about putting your time into forcing the big 2 to lift their game?
Silly Greens, telling Australians who made a donation to their cause. Better to cover it up, right?
The ACT branch of the CMFEU, the branch which made the donation, does not have loggers and miners as members. And if they did, do you really think Kerrie would change her vote, or shut her mouth, on these issues? You’ve got to be joking.
I assume the union donated to her campaign to help end Howard’s control of the Senate. Anything wrong with that, Beyond Thought?
and the libs have dirty filthy christian groups such as the exclusive bretheren backing them.. which is far worse than the greens recieving donations from industries they target..
Why is it any difference? At least the PM was at church yesterday afirming his christianity – not accepting money from the union and then pretending to be green!!!
I also note that the Lib canidates are the only ones which had he courage to answer the question about disagreeing with the party.
Wasn’t union support fundamental in getting the environmental movement going in Australia through the green bans in the 70s?
thethruth: If VSU is repealed, and the situation reverts to the previously prevailing situation, then it will be up to the individual universities again whether or not they charge compulsory union fees. One would think that if there was sufficient demand for no-student-union-fees, then the free market would provide universities choosing freely not to charge those fees.
OK, thetruth and beyondblue, since you’re supposedly into ‘integrity’, how about putting your name where your insults are? And disclosing whether or not you belong to a political party?
thetruth, the idea that Kerrie would ‘pretend to be Green’ while selling her soul for 20 grand is ludicrous, and you know it. And remember, you’re able to run your crappy lines BECAUSE SHE DISCLOSED HER DONATION BEFORE SHE HAD TO. Why would she do that if she’d compromised her principles, huh? THat’s somothing the big 2 do, over and over.
Who are you 2 voting for? The secrecy parties? Because they have no integrity, and you’re into that? Cheap and nasty smears about a person standing for public office under cover of anonymity speaks for itself where ‘integrity’ is concerned.
PS: do either of you have a problem with Humphries’ fear and loathing, deeply misleading anti-Greens brochure letter boxed on Friday making no mention that it was a Liberal Party shit sheet?
Yes Jack mundy’s mob were very fundemental – as were the libs in demolishing the white australia policies and getting indiginous australians the right of citizenship.
As my kids would say what have they done this millenium – they were fundemental in getting Howard elected in 2004.
well the fact that he is religious is a BIG BIG problem to start with it. and of course unions and green party are going to work closely.. and want to develop relationships… it makes a lot of sense.
Already done that Margo see other posts but here is a copy for your dossier:
“For the record – not a member of any party. Tried to join the Labor party, but was not allowed to join as I was not a member of a union. I believe in not being forced to join a union – so no ALP membership for me.
I have served both Labor and liberal Governments. I have voted labor more than liberal – but did vote Liberal last time.
typed and spoken – thetruth”
Yes Margo I am a real live swinging voter!!!!!
So don’t question me answer me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and seriously, “pretending to be green”, do you honestly and seriously think that the Greens candidate is just pretending to be an environmentalist, and actually her donation from the construction branch of the CFMEU indicates that she’s really going to vote for a coal mine in every electorate, and the clearfelling of Tasmania?
I call bollocks. The idea is absurd. It’s an attempt to manufacture a controversy.
The only people who owe anyone an explanation is the union, to their members – and presumably their members are a bit more worldly than the average riotacter and see the Realpolitik – “it’s about ditching WorkChoices, duh!”.
Why would the CEMFU donate to the greens??
thetruth, what part of your diatribe haven’t I answered? And what IS your name?
Are you aware that the AFP are investigating the Exclusive Brethren for breaches of electoral law re funding huge pro-Liberal and anti-Green propaganda during the last election? They didn’t say the money was from them, you see, but from a front company they poured cash into. Yet another attempt to keep truth from the people.
“The only people who owe anyone an explanation is the union, to their members – and presumably their members are a bit more worldly than the average riotacter and see the Realpolitik – “it’s about ditching WorkChoices, duh!”.”
So the only people the exclusive whatevers owe is to their members????
And the top reason to put the Greens LAST on your ballot paper is… “Margo Kingston, campaign adviser”
If this is the quality of the people supporting Kerrie if she gets in to the Senate… God help us all!
Congratulations Margo you just cost your party my vote.
Don’t get me wrong I am not a supporter of the exclusive whatevers?? But there seems to be a double standard in realtion to religous involvement in public life and those with other belief based views.
I am not a religous person – by any note haven’t been inside a church for over 10 years and then that was someone elses wedding!
Margo I will out myself when all Rioters do. Yah great goose!!!!
Margo – it just occurred to me why didn’t you ask the political affiliations of others who had posted – like Caf , Pierce and Absent Dianne?
You were not concerned about transparency for all just those that didn’t agree. I have already put my vote out in other post.
When hit with that you ask me for my name….
That how totalitarian regimes work….
transparency my eye ….
areaman said :
The difference is that the Libs don’t announce it till months after the election, and even then only if it’s over $10,000. At least with the greens you can judge before the election, with the coalition you can’t.
Additionally I’d say the beliefs of the Brethren are much more extreme than the CFMEU to the average Australian.
To truthout:
In that case, I suggest you face an ethical issue, as does the editor of this website. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to make allegations of impropriety and lack of good faith against someone without putting one’s name to it. If that makes me a goose, I’ll accept the tag.
And what is your point re double standards and the Greens re religion and spirituality?
PS: sallyann, really? And what is your objection to me,may I ask? Or is gratuitous, anonymous smear the modus operandi of this site’s management? If anyone would like to try a site where citizen journalism is taken seriously with regard to ethics, try http://www.webdiary.com.au and see ‘Webdiary ethics’ at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1
Hi Margo, welcome to RA by the way – there are a broad range of voices here but overall the rightos tend to be a little more zealous in the baiting stakes.
There’s a fair bit of pseudonymity here because a lot of people “work” in the PS and need that protection.
As for “what have the unions done for us this millenium?” – mine has just included Journey cover for trips to work, which was recently stripped from compo by the govt. I’m also pretty happy with them for helping me have to avoid being an I.R lawyer in negotiating my pay and conditions.
The main problem with the Exclusive Brethren thetruth is that their beliefs include not participating in the electoral process and also that Howard’s office responded to Bob Brown’s FOI request for correspondence between the PM and the EB by saying there wasn’t any when there were in fact 3 letters.
But what am I judging??
The central question is why – is it a bribe to ensure that the unions can assume power. Is it a bribe to ensure that they follow through on their promise to wind workchoices back MORE than the Labor party has said it will?
I must say I totally agree in relation to disclosing before the election and lower amount – well made and good point.
BUT it is only worthwile if the candiate can be quizzed and held accountable.
Otherwise it is like consultation that is really telling.
To truthout:
The reason I asked YOU was because you were defaming Kerrie Tucker, and my point in relation to ethics is that in my opinion this is morally wrong when the smearer hides behind behind anonymity. Get it?
Totalitarianism? Huh? What on earth are you on about?
Got a problem being upfront about who you are? Mate, you don’t have to worry about the Greens tracking you down. The Greens have consistently opposed the ever increasing powers of police and spies to tap our phones etc etc.
It’s people like you who help good people decide their minds not to go into politics. Your modus operandi is that of an unaccountable coward. People who have values and care about their reputation have no defence against the likes of you. Make you feel powerful? Sad.
Ooh, bagging the site won’t help you Margo – as much as I agree with most of your positions, I think we actually get broader discussion and dare I say a little less preaching-to-the-choir here.
Hope you stick around though.
truthout: “I must say I totally agree in relation to disclosing before the election and lower amount – well made and good point. BUT it is only worthwhile if the candidate can be quizzed and held accountable.”
And she has. She’s answered questions on this matter several times in interviews. She is accountable precisely BECAUSE she’s been transparent, as her voting record will be if she is elected to the Senate.
Feel like asking Humphries about the developer donations he’s received? Ask away, and he won’t tell you until way after the election, and then only if there’s not a scheme in place to avoid disclosure laws.
I am sorry Margo you are right… you are always right.
Vote 1 Kerrie Tucker
Can someone please hand Margo a tissue.
Hi Pierce. I have no objection to nomdeplumes, for the reason you mention. My objection is the use of nomdeplumes to mount personal attacks on people who are upfront about who they are. It’s a matter of fairness, that’s all.
To me, sites like these are crucial to the development of a strong alternative, citizens media, and thus the re-empowerment of our democracy. I get sad when that cause is high jacked by bullies and their egos who hide behind a nomdeplume. It stinks, and so do they.
I’ve gotta say, the Brethren also sicken me on philosophical level. I remember reading David Marr’s report on them ages ago, before they jumped to their recent major spotlight. One of them was going on about having to hoard wealth for the faithful or something along those lines. Awful convenient mix of capitalism and Christianity. I wonder if these guys actually believe their junk.
Good responses Kerrie. You’ll be in the senate as far as I’m concerned.
thetruth: A moment’s reflection would tell you the answer. The ALP want to wind back WorkChoices, and the CFMEU support this. In order for the ALP to do so, they not only need to win enough lower house seats to form government, they also need to have their legislation passed by the upper house. The Liberal/National Coalition, should it retain a blocking majority (tied votes in the Senate are resolved in the negative), would be expected to use this to block any attempt to water down WorkChoices. In the ACT there is no chance of electing two ALP senators; however, there *IS* a chance of replacing one Liberal senator with a Greens senator. Hence, it makes sense for the CFMEU to support the Greens senate candidate, in the ACT.
there is just no place in politics for a warm, intelligent hardworking and experienced candidate like Kerrie, why I bet she doesnt even know how to lie! (ok a bit sucky, but glad to have KT back on the voting sheet!)
and to MargoKingston, your respectful and polite handling of the beyondbeingacurioustooge troll and for that matter, getting down and dirty with the blogging annonymous masses draws some respect,
any other interviewees have their media advisor responding to taunts and abuse?
And I ’spoze this is some sort of right-wing beat up isn’t it?
On Saturday afternoon, Senator Humphries’ campaign manager and another volunteer were collecting material from the Pilgrim House early voting booth in Civic, when they were confronted by Mr Manderson. He proceeded to hurl abuse and expletives at them over the publication of a recent brochure which criticised the Greens’ policies, causing an embarrassing scene which was witnessed by several passers-by.
…Without any provocation at all, Mr Manderson verbally abused members of my campaign team, using personal insults and four-letter words, and all because he didn’t like the content of one of our flyers.
Margo, do you tollerate this sort of behaviour from Greens campaign workers?
Beyond, where is that quote from, also have you seen the pamphlet in question, it’s easly as offensive as getting a bit floral.
Yeah, what’s wrong with that, Beyondintelligence? At least the campaign worker had the guts to identify himself.
Ahh I see, it’s from the Liberals webpage (hence no citation), getting some more marching orders BeyondThought
? From the sound of it something happened, but untill I see some third party accounts it sounds like a beat up to me.
Ms Kingston, why is it the “tollerent” like you are so intollerent of the views of others???
Take a chill pill.
BeyondThought, no response to my requests of you? Ah well…
Re the matter you you raise, yes, passions ran high. Senator Humphries, in direct breach of his written undertaking to run a clean, transparent campaign, authorised a false smear sheet against the Greens to be letter boxed without having the guts to put the Liberals’ name to it. Similar to the points I was making about you and thetruth.
Roland was upset, and told the people you mentioned so. He knows them, by the way. By the end of the encounter, he apologised, and the people concerned accepted it. Funny thing was, Humphries went public on the matter without bothering to mention the apology.
So, what’s the sin, BT? Getting mad, upfront, calming down and saying sorry; or backstabbing through misleading advertising you pretend you’re not responsible for?
Here is Roland’s statement:
“This misinformation on a leaflet which doesn’t admit to being from Senator Humphries or the Liberal Party has left a lot of people upset. Our phones and email have been running hot. In regards to my actions on Saturday, I apologised at the time for raising my voice to Liberal Party staffers, and we shook hands. I unreservedly apologise again.
“An apology from the Liberal Party and Senator Humphries for distributing a misleading and essentially anonymous brochure would also be appropriate.”
Now, BT, are you prepared to apologise to Kerrie for falsely, and without a shred of evidence, accusing her of ‘a lack of integrity”? Or of defaming her under cover of a nomdeplume?
Tolerating is one thing, green. You can still tolerate an opinion and debate it at the same time.
Humphries was talking about this confrontation on radio this morning. I immediately thought that it would have been Mr Manderson. He is pron to the odd tizzy fit.
The Greens love to dish out the mud but don’t you dare say anything negative about them.
They are a ‘precious’ mob!
Margo seems to have been successfully baited and she bit. And then went back for further bites.
Hint to Margo the first rule of a possible flamewar in -any- online forum, especially in an election year:
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
This is an extension of the Internet Dickwad theory, which goes: Normal person + anonymity + audience = total knob.
It is hoped that this will help you for future online excursions.
tolerant? take a spell pell?