What price principle? About $20,000

jennib 7 August 2007 44

ACT Greens Senate Candidate Kerrie Tucker has displayed a disgusting lack of principle in accepting a $20,000 donation from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), and demonstrated that her green credentials are not as important as a fat pile of cash, ACT Senator Gary Humphries said today.

The ACT Greens website includes a list of donations made to the party in the past 12 months, prominent among which is a $20,000 donation from the Organising Fund of the ACT Branch of the CFMEU.

Senator Humphries said that he was flabbergasted to discover Mrs Tucker would accept a donation from the union given its strident support for further logging of Tasmania’s old growth forests and opposition to key aspects of the Green’s environmental policy.

“I mean, this is the same group that cheered John Howard when he announced an extension of logging in Tasmania in 2004, and which has consistently opposed any moves to lock-up Australian forests – what on earth is Mrs Tucker doing getting into bed with them by accepting such a substantial donation?” Senator Humphries asked.

“Are her so-called ‘green credentials’ just a front which disguises a secret passion for logging? Or is her campaign simply going so badly that she has no choice but to accept donations from all comers?”

“Either way, I believe Mrs Tucker has some serious questions to answer – to her fellow Greens, her supporters, and the wider ACT electorate.”

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
44 Responses to What price principle? About $20,000
Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 4:39 pm 09 Aug 07

Ant Pant: yeah funny – ha ha.

Never been on the Greens website, not a member, don’t see the Canberra Times unless I can flog the boss’s copy on rare occasions, didn’t read the letter you claim to have been printed, didn’t write it.

But I did write every word of my comment above.

If you find some thread of familiarity to it, that would be because it is a FACT. That you’ve heard something like it before is good, because perhaps it might be sinking in.

What’s the adage? Tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them some more, and when you are just about ready to be sick before saying it again, then the message might be almost getting through…
What you’ve got to do to cut through the crap that is spun by the old parties who want people to keep on believing their spiel about “wasted votes” – which the prior comments I referred to were testament too.

If you’d been paying attention to my comments over the last year or more, you’d recall that I have often espoused voting Greens, Democrats, independents, other minors (that are bonkers anyway…) – anyone to make sure that the majors don’t end up with absolute majorities. Why? Because that’s BAD for democracy. BAD for good government. BAD for their communities.
Governments should be answerrable to their constituents on each and every decision they make – not just every 3 or 4 years.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 11:57 am 09 Aug 07

The actual point is that each group needs to have someone to vote FOR. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for politicians to have different and varying views. Quit whinging – it’s the way it is.

Maelinar Maelinar 11:45 am 09 Aug 07

These people are represented – they cast their collective vote, and their representative is in power. It’s time to get a grip on the fact that you are a minority and that nutbag christian zealots outpopulate the other minority groups.

What I can’t see is why right to life is seen as a right wing issue, in NZ it’s a left wing issue, categorised amoung handing out money to bludgers and free everything and all the other bleeding heart issues.

I thought Right wing theory was more aligned to the science of the debate and allowing experiments on unborn foetus stem cells etc.

In this case, the science being if the election to abort is made by a sane, voting, otherwise normal person, then get out the steak knives and show us your medical superiority.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 10:35 am 09 Aug 07

“Your party really needs to get a grip on life and accept main-stream values if they ever want to lead another government in the ACT.”

There are a lot of people who have both religious-oriented and other more traditional views. These people should be represented. Simply because someone disagrees with a throwaway ‘free love’ Gen Y type opinion doesn’t make their opinion any less valid.

sandwich sandwich 10:26 am 09 Aug 07

Pandy – if you think that Gazza is the ‘religious right’ then you obviously have no clue whatsoever. There are a lot of pro-lifers on all sides of politics.

Gaz also crossed the floor for civil unions in the ACT – so all in all he seems to represent the ACT well.

I also believe there are some people who live in the ACT who are Catholic as well!

Thumper Thumper 9:32 am 09 Aug 07

I don’t have a problem with Gazza or anyone being against abortion. They are entitled to their view.

It just happens that it’s not my view.

Ant Pant Ant Pant 9:20 am 09 Aug 07

Pandy: do you know who the rest of the Management Committee are??? As I understand it, Humphries is the moderate to Mulcahy/Kent’s far right lunacy… I doubt he’s the one pushing any hardcore views!

Pandy Pandy 7:48 am 09 Aug 07

Sorry Gazza,

I don’t believe in your Catholic religious right anti-abortion views. As a member of the management committee in the ACT I am sure you have pushed your views on to the rest of the party.

Your party really needs to get a grip on life and accept main-stream values if they ever want to lead another government in the ACT.

(Note: I am not posting from or am a member of the Labor Party, so stop guessing all you fair Liberal readers).

Ari Ari 6:46 pm 08 Aug 07

I loathe much of what the Greens stand for, but I loathe WorkChoices (and AWB etc etc) even more.

I’m now prepared to put the Greens as a second preference simply to get Senator Gaz away from the balance of power ASAP. Even a mad Green is preferable to more Coalition lunacy.

Unfortunately, much of life involves making a choice between two appalling alternatives.

Senator Gaz Senator Gaz 6:00 pm 08 Aug 07

Hello all,

I would just like to clarify a point made by Pierce – while the ACT branch of the Liberal Party did accept a donation from Right to Life in the 2005/06 financial year, this money went to specific members of the Legislative Assembly – neither myself, or my office, received any of this.

However, even if I had received some of this money, this would still be consistent with my publicly-stated views on abortion issues. The same cannot be said for Ms Tucker’s acceptance of funds from the CFMEU.

Kind regards,
Gary Humphries

Ant Pant Ant Pant 5:12 pm 08 Aug 07

Gungahlin Al – didn’t I read that exact spiel in the Letters page of the Canberra Times some weeks ago? Do the Greens have that available to all members in cut and paste format?

caf caf 5:03 pm 08 Aug 07

Err. that last one didn’t come out right, the AEC results are here.

caf caf 5:00 pm 08 Aug 07

Yes, and “splitting the left vote” is particularly inapt in our 2-member Senate electorate – the total “left” vote at the 2004 electorate (being, for the sake of this argument, the total of ALP and Greens) was 1.72 quotas, making two Liberal Senators an impossibility. The worst possible outcome for the “left” here is this vote being split 50:50 – since we’re talking worst-case scenarios let’s allow for some loss of votes too, say 0.7 quotas each. That still only leaves a maximum of 0.6 quotas remaining on the “right” after electing Gaz, so all the remaining “right” candidates will be eliminated before either of the “left” candidates, resulting in one of them taking the second spot.

Some good references – Antony Green’s site at the ABC for the 2004 election and AEC’s results for the ACT from that election.

Thumper Thumper 4:58 pm 08 Aug 07

Somehow I doubt it.

Labor shot themselves in the foot last election. Forget scare tactics and all that stuff, if Beazley was running instead of Latham we may just have seen him as PM.

Whatever the case, it would not have been such a devestating defeat.

pierce pierce 4:54 pm 08 Aug 07

I never said the Libs weren’t voted in (and I agree that at least part of the senate schemozzle comes down to the insane Labor preferencing deal that gave Family First a seat with less than 2% of the vote).

I merely made the point that had John Howard told Australian voters the extent of his IR law plans, they might have thought twice.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 4:36 pm 08 Aug 07

Comments like Evil’s that a vote for a minor is a wasted vote and Ralph that it splits the left vote just go to show what an effective job both of the old parties have done spinning this lie to the community. It is a lie designed to entrench the two-party preferred situation that serves those two parties so well and allows them to just take turns.

The truth is that if your first preference goes to a candidate from Liberal or Labour, that’s it – almost certain that your vote ends there – unless enough people pay attention to the next bit…

If instead your first preference goes to a minor or independent, and they don’t get up, then you effectively get a second go with your preference going to one or the other of the old parties (remembering that Howard has outlawed the method that allowed you to stop your preference going to anyone else if you so desired – the so-called Albert Langer method to remember the bloke who was sent to jail for the heinous crime of telling us how to do this).

Of course there is a chance the minor candidate might get enough to get enough votes to put them in second place, and then enough of the preferences of the lowest of the old party candidates might flow to them and get them over the line. It’s a bit more complicated in the Senate but basically the same.

So a vote for a minor is not wasted – in fact most often you get two bites at the cherry.
And the left vote is not often split as many left voters would see Labour as the lesser of two evils rather than worth voting for straight off (based on the proven pathetic record of the Federal Liberals in most fields of concern to society). It is unfortunate that they put more stock in covetting Green preferences instead of covetting better policies in their own right.

And yes – removing the balance of power from the Liberals straight away would be a good thing. No government should have an absolute majority.

Maelinar Maelinar 4:20 pm 08 Aug 07

Rudd doesn’t need any more votes to win an election, he needs his party to stay out of trouble, while the Liberals keep frothing at the mouth and falling over themselves with idiotic policy.

Thumper Thumper 4:12 pm 08 Aug 07


The libs were voted in. It was fair and square.

However, a majority in the senate is always going to be a worry.

Then again, put the whole thing down to that idiot Latham.

Rudd is playing a canny game at the moment by not saying alot. No real policies, no real opposition to what the Libs are doing or saying.

very smart politicking.

Slinky the Shocker Slinky the Shocker 2:29 pm 08 Aug 07

So, you judge the Libs and Labour based on the donation they accepted from the KKK and Al Quaida?


There’s nothing scandalous about the donation to the Greens. It was disclosed on their website… done! Get over it.
There is also nothing wrong in including everyone in the political process. Just because Howard doesn’t talk to anyone left of Pauline for ideological reasons it doesn’t mean that the Greens shouldn’t involve other stakeholders.

As for democracy: Ralph is right. The vote has been cast. But also the primary vote for the Greens was 7.2%. Anyway, I support Greens and Democrats as the only real opposition to John Rudd and Kevin Howard and their interchangeable parties. Keep the bastards honest!

Ralph Ralph 1:13 pm 08 Aug 07

Yes they were. Workplace relations reform was always on this Government’s agenda.

Workchoices isn’t unpopular you know.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site