20 November 2007

Federal Election Email Interview - Kerrie Tucker, ACT Senate candidate for The Greens

| Jazz
Join the conversation
159

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 – ACT 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!

Join the conversation

159
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
Gungahlin Al11:28 am 26 Nov 07

TT: “Spent some time over the boarder “

Really? How did he/she feel about that?

Well Margo obviously made such a huge difference to Kerrie’s election chances.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

It still hasn’t changed. :P.

We still have spelled Kerrie tucker’s name wrong in the “Email Interviews” thing at lower right, btw.

I noticed this from the ABC:

The Greens Senate candidate Kerrie Tucker says irresponsible tax cut promises have forced Labor to propose cutting the public service.

“That’s why it’s really upsetting people in Canberra, because many more people are saying nowadays that they don’t want the tax cuts and they want investment of public money in infrastructure,” she said.

My question is: If Kerrie Tucker has the balance of power on Monday. Will she block the Labor tax cuts to save jobs in Canberra?

If not: How independent is the senate under the Greens? Additionally, if they don’t intend block them to and have the power to block then then what was the point of the statement? (I suspect that they are still in carping from the sidelines mode rather than in power mode).

If they are going to block them shouldn’t they come clean?

hairy nosed wombat2:28 pm 22 Nov 07

154 comments, who said this was the election about nothing.

If we are going to keep the bastards honest we should be applying this sort of political debate all the time, not just every three years.

Ps. For the Record: I am not a member of the democrats, greens or any other political party.

PS: Just so I don’t get sued… I am NOT suggesting that that two are identical. Clearly Margo’s press release doesn’t constitute electoral fraud or and illegal act.

I was just googling to find out who preferenced who on the above the line voting and came up with Margo Kingston;s webdiary thingy (second on the google list!)

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2141

I noticed that she did not disclose that she was a staffer for the Greens and all the google ad’s were for greens.

I notice that she puts out and unofficial / official press release – I would have thought very much like the libs in Lindsay.

She puts out a “Margo Press Release”, instead of a greens press release. and then says Bob Brown wouldn’t do such a thing….

But she is part of the inner sanctum of the champaign……

Kinda sounds like Labor defends bali bombers…

By someone close to the champaign…

But official denials….Press Release out

Pandy, do you have a cite\can copy the relevant Margo bit?
*stopped buying the CT a while back*

I’m pretty sure that one of the original founders of Greenpeace has been widely lambasted for acting as a corporate shill for Big Oil etc so that’s a fairly odd comparison.

And since when did anyone here have any respect for the CT?

Margo Kingston gets a pasting in the Canberra Times about her comments here. Thanks Megan for reading RiotAct

Kerrie Tucker is part of the militant left wing old style Greens. Even the original co-founder of Greenpeace is more moderate these days.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa

Patrick Moore: Going back to the early days in Greenpeace in the 1970s and 1980s, we were totally focused on nuclear war and nuclear testing in the Cold War. We failed to distinguish between the beneficial uses of the technology and the evil uses of the technology.

It became clear to me that there was a logical disconnect. The people who were most concerned about climate change were most opposed to nuclear power. Greenpeace is against fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power. Those three technologies produce over 99 percent of world energy. What kind of a path to a sustainable future is that?

34,188 – God that’s more than I thought she had received.

aka about half of the Lib vote, and less than half of the ALP vote.

AEC say Tucker received 34,188 First Preference votes last election.

By the way, does anyone know how many votes Tucker managed to poll in the last Federal election?

I thought she’d done very poorly that time around, so why do the Greens think things are going to be so much better this time around?

She’ll need it with the ‘help’ she’s getting.

stonedwookie4:27 pm 21 Nov 07

im gonna vote for them i wish her luck.

“dear thetruth and other liberal stooges…… perhaps before you attack the greens for recieving (declared and above board) funding from the cfmeu you should comment on the elephant in the room regarding gary nairn’s campaign.”

I am not a lib stooge – I am that ever elusive swing voter. Voted Lib in 2004, Labour 2001, 98, 96, 93, 90, 87. Occassionally Dems in the senate. ACT voted Lib since Carnell came in (whatever year that is). Spent some time over the boarder and voted in a NSW election think I voted lib then too.

Calling someone a stooge or union hack or commie – is a short hand way to devalue the point of view. So far over 140 posts and very little commentary on policies.

The Greens are going to the dogs?

Lets face it, most (not all) politicians are like dogs: they sniff one another’s bottoms, hump your leg around election times, and piss on you the rest of the time.

If my dog was a campaign advisor to a Green senate candidate I’d be fairly concerned. But not suprised.

Now THAT is going to the pool room.

If my dog was a campaign advisor to a Green senate candidate I’d be fairly concerned.
But not suprised.

If your dog was Margo it would sue you.

Thumper, I think you have just defamed your dog.

My dog is a fat, furry, previously abandoned RSPCA muppet.

I’d rather a mongrel any day.

captainwhorebags9:25 am 21 Nov 07

Thumper – I think outlawing dogs in shopping centre windows is a good thing, as people are paying megabucks for “designer dogs” that aren’t being looked after.

The problem may lie in the registration process for breeders, which could see the end of crossbreeds. I have nothing against purebred dogs, but both of my dogs are pound rescue mutts who I wouldn’t swap for any master-race dog.

3.3.2. Discouraging impulse buying, by restricting the sale of live companion animals to authorized and regulated breeders. ^

Anyone care to comment on this bit of policy?

cigarettesmokingman and which one of the Marx brothers are you?

Samuel Gordon-Stewart2:31 am 21 Nov 07

I hereby apologise for accusing Ms. Tucker of copying an answer from Labor candidate for Fraser, Bob McMullan.

I also apologise to Ms. Kingston for posting that I believed she had nothing to do with the Greens and was merely out to make them look bad by pretending to be one of them. In addition I retract my earlier comment to that effect.

I do, however, maintain by belief that Ms. Kingston has done her cause no favours in this forum.

On a side note, thank you to the people who have clarified various comments, and elicited these apologies and retractions.

cigarettesmokingman1:46 am 21 Nov 07

dear thetruth and other liberal stooges…… perhaps before you attack the greens for recieving (declared and above board) funding from the cfmeu you should comment on the elephant in the room regarding gary nairn’s campaign.

Hey TT, you’re way stuck in the past bro. Politics is not a zero sum game tallied up at the end of each day.

If you want to know how the Greens will act in the Senate with the balance of power, Bob Brown explained it pretty well on late line last night.

The realisation of a bicycle/public transport outcome outlined in the policy you chose above can be achieved through an ongoing process of exploration and persuasion both at the level of parliament, and directly among the citizenry.

Such a policy is rational, and effective in relation to economic health, medical health, carbon health and community equity/development. The ALP is not beyond persuasion about this, and even the Liberal Party (post blood-bath) will be amenable. The party wjich does not perform to public satisfaction will face electoral accountability.

The Senate, much more than the Reps, will be the House of ideas and debate in our prosperous common future.

Compared to this scenario, your juvenile pursuit of an “answer my question! Is it “yes” or “no” belongs back in the kindergarten. Most people have moved on, mate.

But they haven’t:

If they were to stick to their platform (which Kerrie Tucker admits in her answer above she may not “she reserves the right”)

Then they would not pass any labor legislation without amendment – which leave labor negotiation with the Libs OR the greens.

The Greens are not asking the Australian people to vote in an alternative Government (the leader is in the Senate and cannot become PM). So a platform is useless unless they make commentary on which of the two major parties policies they will block or hold out on.

For example this is one of their policy announcements the other day (lifted straight from the media release)

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle has today launched The Greens federal cycling initiative.

Joining dozens of cyclists for a mass ride into the centre of Sydney Senator Nettle announced that The Greens will be pushing for a Commonwealth commitment of $750 million dollars over ten years to support cycling infrastructure and promotion.

“The Greens believe that all transport funding should be based on principles of equity, fairness and sustainability. Cycling, walking and public transport make a huge positive contribution to the environment and to communities, yet the federal government is not doing enough to promote and support cycling,” Senator Nettle said. “The Greens ‘Roads to Rail’ policy has called for 25% of the over $5 billion dedicated to road development each year to be redirected into sustainable transport options including cycling infrastructure.”

Now whether you agree or disagree with the policy. If it is a real initiative that they intend to deliver from the Senate. Then they must block something to negotiate it in OR they do not intend to block something and this id a hollow promise.

Now I believe they will block something to negotiate it in – so my question is what will they hold to ransom???

The Greens have a platform, it’s on their website – presumably that’s what they will try to achieve with the balance of power, why wouldn’t they? That’s what their voters want.

Presumably they are aware that politics involves some deal making to achieve your goals and will deal with these things as they arise IF they gain the balance of power. (Let’s not forget that there are more seats at play than the two in the ACT)

Just because Johnny didn’t take fullblown Workchoices to the electorate last time doesn’t mean that everyone has something to hide.

I’m not sure what the point of your question is thetruth. I can’t speak for the Greens but they seem pretty upfront.

We must have very short memories. Kerry languished in the LA for donkeys years and achieved absolutely nothing except frequent whining which maybe made her feel better but did absolutely nothing for your run of the mill ACTer.

Yes I did vote for her initially but on seeing what a piece of wet rag she actually ended up being then she lost my vote – irrevocably. If she had just a smidgen of common sense she might be half way a good candidate.

Lots of greens asking for real names but not addressing the issues of reality……

I was just hoping one would tell me what they will do with the balance of power.

Vic Bitterman7:52 pm 20 Nov 07

These greens are just gumbys… LOL!!!

el ......VNBerlinaV87:41 pm 20 Nov 07

Are we really expected to worship people just because they beat their chest about posting under their real name here?

I just assumed everyone realised how STUPID it was to have all your personal details out there on the net. Guess I was wrong.

BeyondThought – you wouldn’t happen to be Gary Humphries media advisor Jen Butterfield?

If you are not, please forgive me.

But if you are… much more appropriate that you disclose, and that includes for public meetings.

Regards, Kate Taylor, Policy Advisor to ACT Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey

Wolfs? Margo is a TIWNLF

barking toad6:55 pm 20 Nov 07

Don’t we all sepi!

It’d be good to have some interesting new posters 🙂

i wish interesting new posters were encouraged to hang around instead of always being driven off by the wolves.

Who is this “thetruth”? and why is he still ranting now that Margot has left?

Because this thread is not about Margo. This thread is about discussing the Grens ideas for government.

Despite a very good attempt (genuine comment)by pierce: I still don’t know what they will push hardest on. I think if you are putting yourself as a balance of power party as opposed to an alternative government- you should be honest about how you will use that power.

Both the majors say they will do the and do that.

Greens give out motherhood statements and stuff like “I agree with Greens policy positions, but also always have the right to vote in accordance with my conscience.”

barking toad5:17 pm 20 Nov 07

Goodness me, some of margo’s kiddies have come out swinging. Hope she approves of their anonymity.

Anyhoo, back on topic.

I sure Kerrie is a wonderful person who may not agree with all of the greens policies but, sadly, her party has some very weird ideas that she will be required to push as payment for bartering with labor senators.

Many of them are outed on this wonderfully balanced site :

http://greenswatch.com/

That’s the worry with margo’s party – the loony element – bob bwown included.

My advice to people who bring up defamation threats whenever they hear something they don’t like is “harden up, cry baby!”.

It’s typical of some (not all) Lefties who want free speech, but only on their terms.

Has anyone played GTA:San Andreas and made it up to San Fierro?. That’s my impression of thetruth.

Who is this “thetruth”? and why is he still ranting now that Margot has left?

Haven’t the Democrats largely been destroyed because people haven’t forgiven them for passing the GST.

(Howard won a majority of seats in that election but more people voted for Labor nationally, indicating that they generally didn’t want it)

I imagine that the Greens will push for their stated policies and are pragmatic enough to understand that compromises have to be made. I’d say that they understand the principle that only the impotent are pure.

Then again, people who vote Green have a right to expect them to push for their stated aims – that’s democracy.

I am sorry (I don’t have a problem with that word), but what substantive policy is out there?

The root of my questioning to the Greens is:

What are you going to block / change of the labor party’s announced policies?

On the basis of the polls it is very unlikely that Howard will be PM on Sunday. So what Labor election promises will be changed by the Greens if they have the balance of power? As someone points out Taxes are highly unlikely as the Libs will not block them.

So what does an “independent Senate” (despite the FACT that it is partisan – but everyone uses smoke and mirrors in an election) mean?

If they are just a rubber stamp then might as well vote for labor. If they are keeping the bastards honest – our olf friends the Democrats have a good history of being a constructive third force.

What of the green agenda will they force on the labor party?

Would Bob Brown describe himself as an economic conservative? Remembering that Bob Brown is the leader of the Green Party – (I just noticed why the Green Party went for the marketing name “The Greens” )

There was plenty of rational discussion in amongst some schoolyard stuff in this thread. If Margo can’t deal with the rest to answer the ‘rational stuff’, she should get thicker skin – particularly if she’s discussing politics.

I treat Piers Ackerman and Margo Kingston the same way.

You can make up your own mind as to what that is 🙂

I have to say, I’ve had a good lol at some of the “ex green voters” turned off the party forever after being schooled in this discussion by Margo Kingston.

The level of bitching about her – hissy fits etc – is a good indicator that people can’t match her on a rational basis and have to resort to hurling insults as she walks off. Her biggest mistake seems to be expecting the same level of respectful discussion here as she seems to get on her own site.

I’m guessing that she probably also knows a thing or two about defamation and RA’ers probably do sail close to the breeze on this matter.

She only failed to respond to the question about tax cuts, which seems a little moot anyway given that both major parties have pledged tax cuts and would presumably support them in the senate, rendering the normal Greens deciding vote on the matter irrelevant.

There are also a few posters here Hero that crop up on Andy I’ve-never-heard-of-workchoices Bolt’s blog as well. I find that kind of reassuring.

Margo has mananged to live up to her reputation – again! She obviously learnt a few things from the Hawke School of Defamation Threats to Silence Any Doubters.

Gazza must be enjoying all this. 🙂

Hi groovers, I keep an eye on Tim Blair’s site to keep up with the barking right crazies and their tactics. TB keeps his site pure by banning anyone articulate with views attached to reality.

I see a few of his brown-shirts commenting here in the usual manner. Lots of personal abuse, made anonymously, and backed up with piffle. If anyone believes the number of abusers that “voted Green” last time, but are now offended by Margo’s comments – well, I’m sorry but you have problems that aren’t going to be sorted anytime soon.

I read Margo’s webdiary too, and remember being taken some months ago with the plan she proposed to campaign for Kerrie Tucker and her chance to take the second ACT Senate seat. Now it’s a mainstream possibility while Humper, Toady and Lie-Boy are still stuck with masturbation as their key political methodology.

Election day will tell the story, and the sad Liberal shit sheet will more than likely contribute to their boy’s demise.

I am not engaging in semantic arguement.

I have asked the tax question three times hoping to get a real answer.

This party in all liklihood will hold the balance of power after Saturday. If the polls are correct Australia will have a Labor / Green Government for the first time in history next Sunday.

yet they are slipping through without being properly grilled.

What are Canberran’s voting for?

From her answer it might not even be the party line:

“I agree with Greens policy positions, but also always have the right to vote in accordance with my conscience.”

If the labor IR law (note IF)result in more people being unemployed what would the green response be:

Bring back workchioces because it was right?
Let people rot on the unemployment line?
Increase Government Spending on employment programS (if so what)?
Increase unemployment benefits to allow unemployed life more bearable?

What?

Weren’t you on ice?

The thing that gets me (other than the ridiculous tantrum) is the unwillingness to actually engage in a discussion – firstly by turning everything into some sort of ethics and defamation discussion, and secondly by refusing to post here anymore (presumably because she realised she wasn’t doing her reputation any good).

Now that they have demolished their credibility to competently to effectively manage the respponsibility of balance of power. ie label every one who disagrees as a defamer (kinda sounds like “Your either with us or against us”)

Have a good look at what the greens are actually saying here.

“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.

Are they actually going to abolish over $9.8 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry? If so what is the impact on electricity prices and petrol prices – what will be the impact for working families or childless couples or pensioners?

If they are not going to abolish them then are they just going to spend us into higher inflation? It seems like it is a have your cake and eat it too.

Unless I am missing something – what are they abolishing to save the money to spend in their priority areas?

No HECS – Having paid HECS while it has its fair share of issues – I don’t think it is a bad tax. One issue was that it was a flat rate and didn’t take account of things like CSA payments, which meant at one stage each additional dollar I earnt 48.5% went to the Government, 6% when in HECS, 34% went in child support and my re-established family got 11.5 cents left over.

That said the HECS bit was relatively minor.

Sweet jesus, talk about tanty time. I’ve never really considered voting green, and having seen the absolute rubbish rants Roland and Margo have had here on RA, that has effectively secured the fact that I will never vote for them.

I wonder how Kerrie Tucker feels about these loons representing the greens cause?

Lots of postings from the canidate office, but I asked a serious policy question which hasn’t been answered:

Kerrie said:

“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”

So will the Greens support the tax cuts still? Labor or Liberal ones?

That is will the Greens block the $34 Billion liberal tax cuts or the $31 Billion Labor tax cuts if they have balance of power?

barking toad1:17 pm 20 Nov 07

Careful Thumping One.

That might be considered highly offensive and defamatory and might impugn a campaign adviser’s professional integrity.

It might also get someone’s panties bunched.

Actually I’m in sunny Gerroa and not very keen on wading into these fights, but I do keep an eye on things.

Sadly, Ms Tucker has put together a reasonably rational and balanced response, only to be totally undermined by the crazed vitriolic rantings of one of ther staffers.

OH NOES, predictions of “Margot is just a see-through single-thread poster” came true!
PS: Margot, this is not an indication that your advertising went unappreciated by the host community, nor ineffective at building an online profile.
Its just Troy Williams\his staffers were willing to at least cross-post into other threads, and build a profile by -not- arguing with potential voters.
Be sure to come back again next election, though!

barking toad12:10 pm 20 Nov 07

I’m just shattered that margo’s left the building, never to return.

She’s probably safer here than at, say, http://timblair.net/

Some of those posters may really get her knickers knotted.

mmmmm Guinness…

tt: good point about the champagne, I guess we all should do our bit for global warming and therefore celebrate/commiserate this election night with Guinness or Kilkenny (fizzed with nitrogen)!

I should add that I have nothing against Ms Tucker. She is hard working and gets out into the community.

Unlike Fraser’s reps representative Mr McMullen.

As candidates go I believe she’s quite legitimate and ahead of most of the pack.

Margo is such a drama-queen. Manderson and Margo….and the Greens wonder why they are such a political joke.

Specific examples I’m afraid I can’t give you as they were all published on blogs in the SMH yonks ago.

I’d hardly say that I’m the only one to ever suggest this.

I’ll retract my comment and say that it has been alleged by some.

Happy now? Or time for another hissy fit?

I note that you didn’t comment on the anti Howard stance..

margo kingston9:36 am 20 Nov 07

To the publisher:

This is my last comment to this forum – it’s been an interesting experience. I request that ‘Thumper’ provide examples of where I have bent the truth to suit some issues.

This is highly offensive, and defamatory, as it impugns my professional integrity.

This is not a threat – as a journo I would never use defo laws. It’s a wish for some accountability by the editor for publishing anonymous contributors who defame those prepared to be upfront about who they are.

‘Thumper’ has engaged in character assasination by smear.

barking toad9:09 am 20 Nov 07

Well I’ve come across this little spat a bit late but it seems roland and margo are cut from the same cloth when it comes to a hissy for the cause.

And now that margo’s on board I’ll definitely put the greens last. I really and truly was going to vote for them in case anyone asks 🙂

Oh, and SGS,

Ms Kingston is most definitely involved with Ms Tucker’s campaign. I vaguely remember hearing an interview on ABC (?) radio some moths ago when she was talking about giving Ms Tucker a hand.

Margo Kingston has been a fervant anti Howard campaigner since he was first elected. one might even say biased against to the point of bending the truth to suit some issues.

And to whoever asked, no, she won’t grace these pages again after the election.

Having said that, it all makes for some good reading.

I thought you are in the Gong JB?

now you are not anti-semantic are you johnboy – its been fun. I’ll put myself on ice – night

OK TT, I think we’re all tired of your semantic gymnastics.

Consider yourself warned and cool it for a bit unless you want to end up in the mod queue.

I have just been reviewing this Margo …I am confused you said:

“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?”

The two minutes later Skidbladnir said “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.”

Your response was: “Thanks for the troll advice, Skidbladnir. A question, though – what’s the point of what they do – to waste people’s time? To get themselves a thrill? To feel important?”

Why didn’t you stand up for others? Maybe it was only and oversight…..

VOTE 1 – Kerrie Tucker – for an independent senate.

BTW SGS, if it was a fake Margo Kingston we would have taken action by now.

Draw your own conclusions.

bd84

What is your name rank and serial number – don’t speak ill of the delicate genius.

Anyway – Kerrie says:

“So we could all enjoy tax cuts and make university free”

No bad news in that one.

So lets crack an organic chardy and cheer – we will all be free soon….

Vote 1 Kerrie Tucker – GREENS

well it looks like everyone has got off the track here..

but then people seem to have forgotten that all greens are nutters.. probably why them morons of canberra are going to vote kerry t(f)ucker in.

She doesn’t seem to know much from the answers above, but then every mother who managed their family’s money would make them good economic managers and fit for election. ok.

I liked the part that the Greens support the abolishment of HECS, but want to repeal VSU.. so that’s like making study free, but not free cause we’re going to make you pay student union fees. Great plan! Oh I hope she’s making plans for the reimbursement of the HECS i’m currently paying too. I expect it. But no plans?

Let’s face it, she doesn’t stand much except for the crazy greeny line oh and that she wants to “bring back the balance in the senate”, of course it’s not just because she doesn’t care about anything else but her getting elected.

Get real people.. we need someone whose head isn’t in lalaland.

Champagne! Those bubbles are carbon dioxide – perhaps something flat would be better.

I was going to say water, but we all need to do our bit for the environmental flows.

Lets just cheer!!!!!!!

Kerrie Tucker has shortened to favourite ahead of Gazza on the betting sites. What’s more, the Liberals realise Gaz is in the deep proverbial because…drum roll…I saw an ad on tele for an ACT candidate (Gazza) a couple of nights ago!!!
Go Kerrie. Go Margo. Champagne on ice.

“Robust commentary is fine by me, but when it involves making false statements of fact with no requirement for correction or withdrawal when called to justify and failing to do so, and defaming people, I’m not with you on that.”

I retracted already… how many hail mary’s do you want!!!

I still did not get an apology for this piece of defamation:

“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 am not a bully nor do I stink…. you clearly cannot smell me over the internet. A good journalist gets the facts right first (read that on Your Webdiary Margo)….

VOTE 1 Kerrie Tucker GREEN PARTY

PS: I thought good ethical journalists say ALLEGED when charges have not been proven.

“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.”

VOTE 1 Kerrie TUCKER – GREENs

We have had a lot of commentary on Margo Kingston and the nature of blogs: Back to the election.

I asked this question some time ago.

“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”

So will the Greens support the tax cuts still? Labor or Liberal ones?

Samuel Gordon-Stewart7:24 pm 19 Nov 07

Bonfire,

I have to admit that the comic value of Margo is something I would like to take credit for, but alas, it is not me.

I have two logins here, one with a username and password I forgot last year, and the one I am using now and have done for quite some time. Both accounts are under my name, I do not use a pseudonym.

That being said, Margo does confuse me. I was under the impression that Roland Manderson was Ms. Tucker’s campaign manager, and I am yet to hear back from Ms. Tucker’s office about the second answer, although they did address my concerns about a certain radio advertisement they have been running.

I will be happy to retract my earlier comments about Ms. Tucker copying and pasting if either her office or a RiotACT admin can confirm that Margo is really from the Greens. I don’t want to know any personal details, just an assurance that Margo is legitimately from the Greens.

Until then I am going to continue believing that Margo has nothing to do with the Greens, and is merely out to paint them in a bad light by being the resident cuckoo bird. (Another statement I will be happy to retract if Margo can be proven to be a real Green).

[Ed. We did receive Ms Tuckers email responses from Margo]

Who Greens? Yes. I believed their Get-up adds. I even voted for them last time No 1.

This time I’ll place them lower than Humphries

Deadmandrinking5:53 pm 19 Nov 07

Were you even voting for them Pandy?

I was going to vote Greens until silly idiot Margo got her pissy knickers in a twist. she who should know better how blogs work.

Now I have just read Kerries flyer dropped of in my letter box and I must say I am scared. Walk to work? Healthy rivers? what does that all mean?

Sorry Margo, you have just cost the Greens my vote.

I have no problem with strong comment, but a sample set of ACT voters that the RiotACT provides will tend to be skewed, and many of them know they have a near-anonymous forum they can argue in.

Putting forth policy&party views isn’t going to get anyone very far, since as sure as a red sun rises there will be a new article to pass comment on tomorrow.
But hooray for MArgot arguing viewpoints at least more effectively than the average Riot one-off poster (see previous threads like “Speed Cameras, They’re stealing my paycheck! Argh!”, “Halp halp! The pizza man overcharged me”, and “Won’t somebody save the chicken man from Melbourne Cup public holiday madness”)

Now, if Troy Williams\his staffers or Margo were posting here more regularly, or in anything other than a “lets build an online blog profile for our candidate where we’re paying for ads and trying to reach a demographic” capacity, I might think their opinions&views had some weight on RiotACT.

*fully expects recent active poster numbers to wain shortly, once election time has passed*

Vic Bitterman5:13 pm 19 Nov 07

My my…. these greens are precious little creatures aren’t they??

i dont think there is anything wrong with nondeplumes Margo.

if thats who you really are.

the argument is what matters, not who is providing it.

id prefer the argument to be valid on its own merits rather than relying on positional authority.

anonymity is vital to ra success for reasons discussed here already.

you seem intolerant of this blogs modus operandi.

if thats the case, perhaps its not the place for you to broadcast your views to the world.

i suspect you could be SGS under another id.

but does it really matter ? its what you write here that should count, not who you are.

Margot, far be it for me to cast aspersions on your editorial decisions but we would expect the same courtesy to be returned.

You’ve had the opportunity to rebut the shills and morons (and done it very ably, mostly to the credit of your candidate, except when casting aspersions on our large and wildly varied readership)

IMHO doing without anonymity is a luxury of the professional media and political classes.

(rather like the way MPs votes should be public while the citizens cast their vote anonymously to prevent repercussions).

It’s a shame that allows bad people the chance to do bad things but on balance we think there is benefit in our approach.

That’s just an opinion. But in terms of running a viable public forum I’d rather let trolls and idiots disgrace themselves (which they tend to do) than spend my days arguing over the finer points of policy guidelines.

margo kingston4:47 pm 19 Nov 07

OK, my last comment. Skidbladnir, I am not an innocent on what happens of website comments pages – after all, I edited Webdiary for more than five years before retiring. Forgive me for expressing my views in strong terms, as most of the commentators here do. If you had any knowledge of Webdiary, you’d know it is not easy to “control” at all, indeed it’s impossible. I set an ethical framework, open it for discussion, and do my best to be transparent. As publisher, I feel responsible for the content on the site. Silly me.

margo kingston4:38 pm 19 Nov 07

Jazz, re your comments that citizen journalism “has nothing to do with ethics”, I disagree. Journalism implies ethical obligations. Otherwise, how is a ‘journalist’ distinguished from any other writer? Sure, many journos are not ethical, but then, many lawyers aren’t either, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have ethical obligations. If you profess to be a citizens journalism site, I suggest that an ethical framework is essential.

Robust commentary is fine by me, but when it involves making false statements of fact with no requirement for correction or withdrawal when called to justify and failing to do so, and defaming people, I’m not with you on that.

Right up until the campaign advisor started questioning potential voters (minute 9 of her time as a RiotAct member at 1128), she was doing fine.
Then at around 1246 she realised this site is not quite as straightforward as say, a CT interview, nor as as easily controlled as her own website.
For othere Margo coverage on RiotAct, see this previous thread

Opinion then roughly matches what it does now.

“Mr Evil, were you really going to vote for them if she wasn’t there?”

Last election I voted for the Greens in the Senate and Liberals in House of Reps, And in several ACT elections I have voted for the Greens.

I think the Greens have a lot to offer, but like some other people on here have mentioned I don’t like their holier-than-thou attitude that they take on some issues.

Plus to be honest, people like Margo Kingston make me sick!

Mr Evil, were you really going to vote for them if she wasn’t there?

Margo Kingston – a very good reason not to support the Greens.

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

So will the Greens support the tax cuts still? Labor or Liberal ones?

Margo you where the epitome of tolerance.

My point was not to offend as for any suggestion that Kerry Tucker is not Green that was not my intent and i sincerely apologise. I don’t agree with many of your policies and will vigourly agrue my point of view.

My main point here albeit inelegantly put.

Is that the greens are as much part of a machine as they proport not to be. While I congradulate you on your policy of disclosure – it is important that we can quizz you on what you believe the CEMFU wishes to achieve through that funding. It is clearly to dislodge Gary Humpharies and ensure that you have the balance of power. That is they really believe in the Labor Party, but they will not pick up the second senate seat so you guys are the lesser of two evils. Is that it? Or do they believe in your policies in their own right.

I also found your slective use of the term defamation interesting.

You only picked on those that attacked your canidate – not the principle.

You do not ask for the political affiliations of Absent Dianne when she said “libs have dirty filthy christian groups such as the exclusive bretheren backing them” I don’t know but I suspect they are washed.

I presume that the Greens would not condome religious vilification – you connot choose who you defend.

Again I apologise for my rant.

For the record citizen journalism refers to the ability of a community to publish news and views independantly and we’re proud to say that we’ve been doing it here almost longer than the term Citizen Journalism has been around. I would note however that the concept of Citizen Journalism concept does not extend to the open and robust commentary that we get on this site. That phenomenom could be loosely termed as Web 2.0.

Neither of which have anything to do with ethics or our moderation and editorial policies.

CanberraGreen2:37 pm 19 Nov 07

Ok, so my spelling is crap! Yes, I will have a SpellPill. Will the Greens legalise that with all of the other drugs too (she says jokingly expecting a few not to get the irony).

It is ok Margo, I guess it can become frustrating but a rational explanation is ok, but some of us here work for organisations with views that we can hold privately but shouldn’t really promote during work time. So having a go at those with an alias just seems rude to me + plus assuming everybody here works for a politician or belongs to a party as others seem to think. Have a nice day.

But how can you trust someone who espouses particular views then accepts money from a group espousing the opposing views?

As a member of the ALP I have a fair bit to do with the ACT CFMEU, and I’d say that most of there views are pretty consistent with the Greens, considering they’re a hard left union and there are no timber or mining members in the ACT.

Even nationally where there are some differences it the CFMEU who been running the biggest climate change campaign this election.

Or do you mean the liberals, as they accept money form the brethren but then also do thing like vote and wear colours.

margo kingston2:25 pm 19 Nov 07

To You can’t be a conformist…:

She HAS given an interview, on morning commercial radio. Of course she doesn’t support what happened, and she said so, and that she counselled Roland. He’s been working his butt off seven days a week, and he blew. He said sorry, and has been answering questions from the media all day. No duck for cover like most from the big 2 who do the ‘gaffe thing’.

Thanks for the troll advice, Skidbladnir. A question, though – what’s the point of what they do – to waste people’s time? To get themselves a thrill? To feel important?

I’d think that if Mr Manderson (an RA poster by the way, I think he is MandersonGRNS or something) is correct and he apologised at the time to the people involved then there’s no need for the candidate to comment on the later beat up. Where’s anyone from the Liberal party apologising for the lies in the basically anonymous flyer they sent out?

I can see why Margo prefers Webdiary – “…Kingston has banned several people from submitting comment to Webdiary after each had questioned her on whether Webdiary’s Editorial Policy was being implemented in a fair, ethical, accountable and transparent manner. …” – Wikipedia

But how can you trust someone who espouses particular views then accepts money from a group espousing the opposing views?

You cant be nonconformist if you dont drink coffee2:16 pm 19 Nov 07

KandyA: I love the inherent pro-Green slant of so much which is said here – any time other people’s staffers have written in here it’s all ‘your tax dollars at work’ and ‘spin machine at work again’, yet when the Greens’ PR woman does it, all of a sudden she is to be applauded for getting in and having a go – which is it?
I also note that while Mr Manderson has issued a statement, the candidate herself hasn’t said anything – does she support this kind of behaviour or not?

wow Margo, take a chill pill !!!! or perhaps get some Midol Max Strength ®

margo kingston2:13 pm 19 Nov 07

CanberraGreen, hi. Got any? I’d better get back to real work, I guess. I hope I didn’t come across as intolerant – I was trying to seriously answer serious allegations against someone I know to be one of the most ethical people I’ve met in my life. We need more people like her in Parliament, in my opinion. She and others like her have the capacity to restore trust in our democracy and our democratic representatives.

Absent Diane2:07 pm 19 Nov 07

tolerant? take a spell pell?

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.

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!

Deadmandrinking2:05 pm 19 Nov 07

Tolerating is one thing, green. You can still tolerate an opinion and debate it at the same time.

margo kingston2:04 pm 19 Nov 07

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?

CanberraGreen2:01 pm 19 Nov 07

Ms Kingston, why is it the “tollerent” like you are so intollerent of the views of others???

Take a chill pill.

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.

Deadmandrinking1:55 pm 19 Nov 07

Yeah, what’s wrong with that, Beyondintelligence? At least the campaign worker had the guts to identify himself.

Beyond, where is that quote from, also have you seen the pamphlet in question, it’s easly as offensive as getting a bit floral.

BeyondThought1:46 pm 19 Nov 07

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?

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?

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.

Deadmandrinking1:11 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

margo kingston1:05 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

Can someone please hand Margo a tissue.

I am sorry Margo you are right… you are always right.

Vote 1 Kerrie Tucker

margo kingston12:57 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

Hope you stick around though.

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.

margo kingston12:52 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

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.

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.

margo kingston12:46 pm 19 Nov 07

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

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..

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.

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 ….

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!!!!

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.

“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????

margo kingston12:18 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

Why would the CEMFU donate to the greens??

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!”.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absent Diane12:10 pm 19 Nov 07

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.

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.

margo kingston12:06 pm 19 Nov 07

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?

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.

Wasn’t union support fundamental in getting the environmental movement going in Australia through the green bans in the 70s?

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.

margo kingston11:54 am 19 Nov 07

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?

Absent Diane11:50 am 19 Nov 07

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..

BeyondThought11:44 am 19 Nov 07

N.B. My donations comment related to amounts over $1,500

BeyondThought11:42 am 19 Nov 07

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.

margo kingston11:28 am 19 Nov 07

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?

margo kingston11:19 am 19 Nov 07

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.]

“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.

“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.

Samuel Gordon-Stewart10:57 am 19 Nov 07

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 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!

BeyondThought10:50 am 19 Nov 07

Curious that there is no mention of the $20,000 donation the Greens took from the forrestry and mining union.

Joe Canberran10:06 am 19 Nov 07

-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?

****

[edited out for your reading pleasure]

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.