Saturday, November 14
The Fremantle Herald reports Gerry Georgatos is forming a new party he proposes to call the “Real Greens”. Such a name would certainly not be permissible under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, but the state’s Electoral Act does not contain a provision equivalent to that prohibiting a name which “a reasonable person would think suggests that a connection or relationship exists between the party and a registered party if that connection or relationship does not in fact exist” (which was designed to disqualify Liberals for Forests and others like it). Georgatos also disputes Lynn MacLaren’s denial last week that she had been behind the preselection of Hsien Harper, saying she had previously admitted this to him.
UPDATE: I’ve been provided with a more in-depth version of the same article, presumably from the Melville or Cockburn version of the Herald.
Sunday, November 8
The Sunday Times reports Georgatos will be directing preferences to Labor:
Labor candidate Peter Tinley’s chances of winning the Willagee state by-election have been boosted, with independent Gerry Georgatos giving preferences to Labor at the November 28 poll. Mr Georgatos, who unsuccessfully sought pre-selection for Willagee for the Greens, said apart from himself, he believed Mr Tinley was the best candidate. He said Greens candidate Hsien Harper was a “good person”, but he believed Mr Tinley was a better candidate. Mr Georgatos denied giving Labor his preferences as payback for not being pre-selected.
Friday, November 6
This week’s Fremantle Herald features a letter from Greens MLC Lynn MacLaren (right) in which she rejects claims the branch meeting that preselected Hsien Harper was stacked, saying the party’s “consensus decision-making” means “branch stacking isn’t possible”. One who begs to differ is Steve Walker, who has told the paper he quit because of “the appalling dishonesty and branch-stacking within the party”. Notwithstanding that he is no longer involved with the party, Walker claims the Willagee preselection was “all the handiwork of Lynn”, whom he labels “the Brian Burke of the Greens”. The paper also corrects its assertion last week that Walker’s gripe had been that he was overlooked for preselection in Fremantle at the expense of Adele Carles – his aspirations had in fact been for the South Metropolitan seat currently occupied by MacLaren. Walker then proceeded to run as an independent, and lodged an above-the-line preference ticket which was punitive with respect to MacLaren personally: while her Greens running mate Scott Ryan was put second, MacLaren was placed behind all major party candidates (since MacLaren was elected anyway, the real impact of his votes was to help elect the Liberals’ Phil Edman ahead of Labor’s Fiona Henderson).
The Herald page linked to above also profiles Christian Democratic Party candidate Henri Chew, and informs us a candidates’ forum will be held at 7:30pm on Wednesday, November 25 (three days before the by-election) at Melville Senior High School’s performing arts hall. There are ads in the paper for Hsien Harper on page one and Peter Tinley on page three, scans of which appear below.
Friday, October 30
The hugely eventful comments thread for this post has made headlines, providing source material for the front page lead story in this weekend’s Fremantle Herald (the Georgatos letter referred to at the end of the scanned article is an edited version of this comment). At issue is the manner in which Hsien Harper was installed as Greens candidate at the expense of Gerry Georgatos, who was preselected earlier in the year when it was felt Alan Carpenter might join Jim McGinty in allowing for a by-election on the same day as the daylight saving referendum in May. Georgatos indicated he was in favour of nominations being reopened when Carpenter did eventually pull the plug, but “party insiders” cited by the Herald say he was “pushed into the decision”. Hsien Harper’s backers got the better of the ensuing preselection meeting, prompting opponents to complain it had been stacked. Georgatos subsequently nominated as an independent, and was promptly forced out of the party.
The sidelining of Georgatos is believed to have occurred largely at the instigation of Lynn MacLaren, member for the corresponding upper house region of South Metropolitan. As the Herald puts it: “About 20 unhappy supporters have since been venting spleens on the Poll Bludger website, with one saying ‘okay, like the others I am a Green – [Lynn] MacLaren and [a] few others knifed him’.” It has been said that Georgatos was felt not to have paid his (metaphorical) party dues; that the campaign might suffer from what one aggrieved comments thread contributor describes as his “outspoken qualities”; and that a candidate with Harper’s union background would in any case be a better bet in a traditional Labor electorate like Willagee.
The dispute also appears to have opened old wounds relating to Adele Carles’s recruitment as candidate for Fremantle at the 2008 election, with some in the party said to have unhappy memories of her as an independent rival to erstwhile upper house MP Jim Scott when he ran in Fremantle in 2005. The nomination of Carles came at the expense of Steve Walker (UPDATE: Or so the Herald reported, but it appears not – see below), described by the Herald as a “founding member” and “loyal warrior for the Greens in various campaigns”. Here too tactical motivations were thought to have been in play, with Carles’s professional background, conservative presentation and young family greatly assisting the party when it sought to win over the Liberal voters who ultimately decided the by-election in her favour (UPDATE 2: The Fremantle Herald confirms it erred in linking Walker to the Fremantle preselection in the next week’s edition – see the entry above).
The ABC’s Peter Kennedy writes about the by-election here, and discusses it here. I’ve also scanned in a full-page Labor ad from the Fremantle Herald – click on the thumbnail to the left for a full view.
UPDATE: Minutes later, Greens convenor Scott Ryan responds:
There are substantial errors of fact in the Herald article that are repeated on your site. Steve Walker did not attempt to pre-select for the State seat of Fremantle in 2008. Adele Carles was preselected unopposed. Steve had already left the party after unsuccessfully nominating for South Metropolitan, choosing to contest that as an independent. Any suggestion that Walker was dumped for Carles is entirely fictitious.
I am not aware of any discomfort over Adele running as an independent in the same election as Jim Scott. She ran on coastal issues and to the best of my memory swapped preferences 2-2. If there are some members who have “unhappy memories” of this, I can of course not rule it out – though it’s nothing I’ve ever heard expressed in years of service to the Fremantle Greens.
As for the remainder of the story, The Greens have not attempted to officially respond to the comments on the site and will not be drawn into debate on that level. Allegations contained within are simply preposterous and delusional.
I have personally maintained communication with Gerry and he maintains that the process was fair and appropriate, and that he was not pushed into re-opening nominations.
I realise that what is said can never be unsaid and perhaps the original posters simply had no idea how damaging their comments would be to Gerry’s campaign and to ours. I am disappointed that the Herald has resorted to cut-and-paste journalism without the fact-checking step in between.
Thursday, October 22
Nominations have closed and the ballot paper order has been drawn, with a modest field of four candidates. Intriguingly, one of the four is Gerry Georgatos, who earlier gave every indication of being relaxed about the re-opening of Greens nominations which ultimately saw him make way for Hsien Harper. The ballot paper order runs Henri Chew (Christian Democratic Party); Peter Tinley (Labor); Hsien Harper (Greens); Gerry Georgatos (Independent).
Wednesday, October 21
The Greens have preselected Hsien Harper, an organiser for the Community and Public Sector Union who ran in Willagee at the 2005 election. Harper was also the party’s candidate for Maylands at last year’s state election, and at the Murdoch by-election earlier in the year.
Sunday, October 18
The Liberals confirmed on Friday they would not be fielding a candidate. The Greens have issued a statement to clarify their reopening of preselection:
The Fremantle-Tangney regional group of The Greens met on Tuesday the 6th of October to discuss opening of nominations for Willagee, selecting a 2-week process for nomination and selection. This process will conclude at a meeting on Tuesday the 20th of October with the selection and announcement of a candidate. Prior to the Fremantle by-election, the Greens chose to not only pre-select a candidate for Fremantle but also for Willagee, expecting a small chance that Alan Carpenter may resign at the same time as Jim McGinty. As this did not occur we elected not to announce the candidate publicly, thinking that it may be seen as an arrogant, provocative or disrespectful move. The candidate selected at the time was Gerry Georgatos. Seven months have passed since the original process, and while there is no question of validity in the previous process, the political landscape has changed somewhat after the victory in Fremantle. Many new members joined in the surge of enthusiasm and the overall chemistry of the party feels a little different. With these issues in mind a proposal was put to the Fremantle-Tangney group to consider re-opening nominations. Gerry himself was joint author of this proposal, stating to the Fremantle Herald (Oct 3) “I feel that I should not hold [the branch] to a decision made seven months ago and would rather ask the members if they want more input. The Greens and I do business differently to the [other] political brands – it’s got to be participatory democracy or there isn’t democracy”. Gerry intends to nominate again as part of the new process.
Tuesday, October 13
Chalpat Sonti of WAtoday reports November 28 has been set by Speaker Grant Woodhams as the date for the by-election (hat tip: Frank Calabrese).
Monday, October 12
The ABC TV news reports, from sources unnamed, that the by-election is believed likely to be held on November 28.
Saturday, October 10
The Fremantle Herald reports Greens state convenor Scott Ryan saying the party will “open up the preselection process again”, despite having preselected “university guild manager Gerry Georgatos” in February when it was thought Carpenter might head for the exit to allow for a by-election on the same day as the daylight saving referendum.
Wednesday, October 7
LATE: Paul Lampathakis of the Sunday Times reports Peter Tinley has been unanimously preselected by Labor’s 16-member administration committee.
EARLY: The ABC reports there are five candidates for Labor preselection: the aforementioned Tinley and Hume, “Labor branch officials” Tony Toledo and Greg Wilton, and Stephen Dawson, former chief-of-staff to Carpenter government Environment Minister David Templeman. Rewi Lyall in comments hears the latter has been endorsed by the party’s Left caucus. Contra the Fremantle Herald, David McEwan is not on the list.
Friday, October 2
The Fremantle Herald reports two further candidates for Labor preselection: Dave Hume, who made a quixotic run against Peter Tagliaferri for the Fremantle preselection and is currently a candidate for Hilton ward in the Fremantle council elections, and David McEwan, an “environmental lawyer involved in the campaign to stop the extension of Roe Highway through the Beeliar wetlands”.
Monday, September 28
Robert Taylor of The West Australian reports Dave Kelly has confirmed he will not be a candidate for preselection. That gives pole position to Peter Tinley, who it so happens lives in Beaconsfield – not in the electorate, but very close to it. Taylor further reports the Greens candidate is expected to be “lawyer and environmental campaigner Graeme McEwan”. CORRECTION: Had the wrong end of the handle here. McEwan is not a Green; Taylor does not say exactly what he is, but I’m presuming he’s a Liberal (although I would have thought it unlikely they would field a candidate).
Sunday, September 27
A report by Paul Lampathakis of the Sunday Times suggests I may have spoken too soon in anointing Dave Kelly as the likely Labor candidate: Peter Tinley, the former SAS officer and Iraq war veteran who unsuccessfully contested Stirling at the 2007 federal election, has confirmed he will nominate, and is the only potential candidate listed in the article. Labor state secretary Simon Mead is quoted saying the preselection will be conducted “within ten days”. The Lampathakis article quotes unnamed Labor figures lambasting Carpenter for not timing his departure to allow for the poll to be held concurrently with the Fremantle by-election and daylight saving referendum on May 16; relatedly, Rebecca Carmody writes in the Sunday Times that Alannah MacTiernan should “do the right thing” and go now so that the Willagee by-election can coincide with one for Armadale.
Friday, September 25
Former WA Premier Alan Carpenter has just announced on the ABC’s Stateline program that he will resign from parliament next Friday. This will initiate a by-election in his safe Labor seat of Willagee, located just down the road from the Poll Bludger’s humble abode in Fremantle. Likely Labor candidate: Dave Kelly, state secretary of the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union.
For non-local observers excited by the prospect of a by-election in the seat neighbouring Fremantle, I have assembled a few stats for cold shower purposes. Unfortunately, the census figures are based on boundaries from before the one-vote one-value redistribution – Fremantle’s would still be pretty accurate, but Willagee would have gotten a bit wealthier. “MFY” stands for median family income.
| WILLAGEE | FREMANTLE | |
| ALP 2008 | 51.7% | 38.7% |
| LIB 2008 | 30.9% | 30.2% |
| GRN 2008 | 17.4% | 27.6% |
| ALP 2005 | 47.9% | 43.8% |
| LIB 2005 | 25.1% | 26.8% |
| GRN 2005 | 9.0% | 17.1% |
| Professionals | 17.7% | 29.2% |
| MFY | $1,137 | $1,313 |
| Mortgages | 35.0% | 26.9% |
| Family households | 65.5% | 56.9% |
| Public housing | 33.6% | 19.6% |
557 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 » Show All
Frank, is that story available online? If not, could you quote the relevant bits?
Appreciated Rebecca… Naturally, we have a presumed two party political system, and with one of those parties configured as a coalition. Obviously, the pragmatic reality is if the best people want to be bona fide candidates, that is with a real chance at being elected, they should be delivering themselves for the most part in respect to party dues through either of the major political parties. Naturally, the pool of opportunities are otherwise in real terms limited.
The Constitution does describe constituencies/electorates as represented by their elected member, and that therefore each constituency is unique in itself rather than the reality which is devolved by the two party monopoly.
I agree with you about the reality. However we are increasingly well served by the increasing number of Independents or Minor Party members who are elected to either House and the Senate. This has ensured that third and fourth party or Independent member proposals are at least raised to challenge existing major party led proposals. Where the Greens, alongside Independents, have served well the Australian electorate is in the Federal Senate, where if the two major parties do not agree on a piece of proposed legislation the outcome may depend upon the non aligned candidates. This is the basic principle of the Constitution. However, I will desist from the argument which I often raise in terms of the ideal of electorates pursuing the best candidate rather than the party of choice.
By the way, Rewi you asked me for some evidence of such commentary by me and especially during the period that I was a member of the Greens. Rather than copy paste various articles and letters to the editor to this site anyone can visit one of my websites, particularly georgatos.com and go to the Letters to the Editor page and subsequently trawl through them – there are some 200 letters there!
Thanks, Gerry
(Written and Authorised by Gerry Georgatos, Independent Candidate for Willagee, 9 Arion Avenue, Harrisdale, 6112)
New update added.
…while I might have criticised the outcome of this preselection and some of the party’s response, I’ve gotta say that some of the media attention here is way off-base, and being used by people with grudges from god-knows-where. I’m sorry, but calling Lynn MacLaren, who is one of the most hard-working and decent politicians I have had the pleasure to meet, “the Brian Burke of the Greens” is nothing short of slanderous.
While I don’t like it – I can understand it politically lest those Bovver Boys in Blue aka the WA Police stage the mother of all campaigns against Labor for being “soft on crime” etc. I’ll bet Ripper & Labor were spooked by Mike Dean’s veiled threat at the Police Rally.
I can understand the logic, but I don’t think it’s a smart move on Ripper’s part. Barnett is not a particularly inspiring leader, and he deserves to go the way of Rob Borbidge, but with such listless opposition, I think Labor’s in for an epic spanking at the next election. WA Labor needs to start being a bit more Kevin Rudd and a little bit less Matt Birney.
Peter Kennedy discusses Willage during his bi-weekly chat with Eoin Cameron.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2009/11/06/2735139.htm
From Today’s West, the obligatory Anti Tinley story.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/6443218/rising-labor-star-in-caravan-park-furore/
Todays Sunday Times (page 28)……Gerry has preferenced Tinley.
According to Gerry, Tinley is the best candidate, after himself of cors.
Interesting.
That WILL upset the usual suspects here
…well, it certainly makes a mockery of Georgatos’s repeated rambling about how he loves Harper and everyone else, and just put himself forward because he really, really liked himself, instead of being peeved at how the preselection went down.
Rebecca,
For someone you alleged had “a certain lack of understanding about the political system”, he’s certainly learnt how to screw over his perceived opponents very quickly.
I think this one comes under “suffer in your Greens jocks”.
But will Gerry’s supporters follow his HTV? Or will they all just preference Green anyway?
Greensborough_Growler: The bloke doesn’t know the difference between the state and federal political systems. That’s mildly concerning for someone who wants to be an MP. Screwing over your perceived opponents…my dog could manage that
Rebecca,
Gerry’s elegant style and touch prove he’s a natural.
I well remember Malcolm Turnbull’s massive branch stack of Wentworth to win the nomination with awe. This guy Gerry has executed a kick to the goollies of the Greens with a panache that can only be admired.
When a dude preferences Labor in a seat the Greens never stood a chance in hell of winning?
Mate, you’re turning into Frank.
Hilarious move by Gerry.
Hello Everyone,
“…freedom is not a property of the human being, but the other way around: the human being is at best the property of freedom… the essence of the human being is grounded in freedom.” Schelling
I joined the Greens, at a time I had come out with the desire to try politics as an Independent, it’s published, because others encouraged me too. However it was yes my decision to join them, and to trust in the advice of others that they ‘are different’. I was a member of the Greens WA for a little over a year with 7 months as their endorsed candidate for Willagee. I was assured that the Greens WA did their ‘business’ similarly to my own, where honour and transparency and equity in decision making are the only means. I had never heard of Jim Scott and Stephen Walker nor of previous allegations of branch stacking and subterfuge.
The Fremantle/Tangney Greens undertook a process, a reasonable enough process, in the recent re-opened pre-selection (20/10/2009). However, process is only as good as its people; all structures, policies and mechanisms are people. A process can be fair or it can be abused.
Usually, I rise on behalf of whomever when I clearly realise an injustice. It is difficult to do this for oneself.
I have no issue whatsoever with Hsien Harper. I believe she is a very nice person and with a decent social ethic. To my knowledge, and from her assurances, she had nothing to do with any underhandedness. Hsien, like myself, is just a victim. I believe her time will arrive to be suitably ready for Parliament. However, there are far too many politicians in office who should not be there.
The Greens WA are in some turmoil over what happened to me, and I have been working internally with a few of them, and will continue to do so, to resolve, for their benefit and the people’s benefit, the wrongs and injustices that they are fully aware of in respect of what a few engineered. I have insisted that Greens members do not assist my own campaign as an Independent. Till the Greens WA resolve their internal issues and educate propriety into their pre-selection processes I will not return to the Greens. Yes, some of them are now ensuring secret ballots and postal votes as a result of the Willagee pre-selection. Till they ensure a comprehensively honest public apology, which will indicate honour and remedy on their part I cannot be part of their political school.
In terms of voting I always make my decision merit based – I am not interested in voting blind – or above the line – obviously many of my leanings and philosophies are in line with the Greens, some with Labor, a few with the Liberals, and others with no-one as I can disagree with all. I voted for Geoff Gallop though I voted for many Greens in his time. I have supported Janet Woollard because of her commitment to Alfred Cove and our stance against the Prostitution Bill (I have brought hundreds of souls out of this despair only to watch an immature and under researched Bill trap more).
I am the only candidate in this election, to my knowledge, to have met every candidate and substantively discussed the issues. To each candidate I have stated that my decision will be merit based. There were no deals, Labor preferenced me 2 because as Peter said to me, “…we know your record.” The Greens, through Scott, and I have his personal recommendation, have indicated they will preference me 2. I will not hold it against them if they don’t because they genuinely believe Peter is a better candidate than Gerry. I believe I am the best candidate this is why I have made my statement and I am running in this election. I and the Greens will still spot light many issues that we both agree on. I wish I could have given them my number 2, however Peter, as a candidate in terms of skills and capacities and knowledge tips out Hsien, who otherwise I do like and admire.
This is who I am and I understand how it may appear to others, especially those who do not know me from close up and at best only by ‘reputation’. Reputation is complex, of course I know who I am, however after what the Greens WA (Fremantle/Tangney) did to me, a few of them, that is with a capacity to unjustly engineer an outcome, they have ‘damaged’ my reputation, and this is utterly disgraceful. I have met with the orchestrator of this outcome and though I forgive her as a human being she inadvertently admitted her wrong doing and her underhandedness and her baseless misconceived assumptions that underwrote it. It took me almost an hour over coffee to get most of the truth out. So I now it for a fact and not just through party insiders and critics.
My reputation, one built on strong advocacy, on taking it up to authority types and who have singled me out for mobbing during the years, one built on human rights, social justice, community development, one built working in the trenches pro bono with youth at risk, the disadvantaged, the underprivileged, with those entrapped in exploitation such as ‘prostitution’, ‘destitution’ and one built in working with all sides of government and community has been affected by the wrongful actions of certain Greens who undermined someone they never spoke to about perceived concerns – which they now realise to be false, and which if inverted would have been strengths, such as my outspokenness, my persistence, my expositions.
You have a right to your judgments and your criticisms and I have a right to be my own person, and that person may conflict with your voting intentions, however I am proud of who I am. I support Greens issues, I support Hsien, I will prefer Peter at number 2, however I will note Hsien’s strengths, I support some Labor policies and in the end I am asking for the number 1 for the Independent, Gerry Georgatos.
For the record, if I had continued, as I should have, as the Greens Willagee candidate, do not make the mistake that I would allow preferences to compromise my person. If I believed Peter number two over other candidates then that is what I would have advocated. I did not follow the HTV for Fremantle in May. I vote on merit. At the Fremantle/Tangney preferences meeting for Adele’s campaign I argued against us being childish when some wanted Peter Tagliaferri at number 11, last, just because Labor had put Adele/Greens last. I could not agree with Peter and other Laborites behind certain others. Obviously, some can argue the pragmatism that the Liberal endorsement and support to the Greens in the Fremantle by-election made the difference.
Whether Labor, Liberal, Greens (and morally I should have their number one vote) in this election I believe I am the best candidate, and I am asking for everyones vote and if by some God-sent miracle the people of Willagee did vote me into Parliament they would have the hardest working MP in business, just like the person I have been in advocacy and community development life long.
“A theologian said that all will be well with me and all permitted to the degree that I obey the Council, and he added, ‘If the Council were to declare that you have but one eye, despite the fact that you may have two, it is your duty to agree with the Council.’ I replied to him: ‘Even if the whole world were to affirm that, I utilising whatever reason I may possess, could not acknowledge such a thing without a rejection of my conscience.’” (K.Kosik)
Someday, if ever, I do make it into Parliament I will ensure I raise and persist with the issue of equity and fair representation in the processes that raise politicians and in the equity of representation within campaigning.
Kindly, Gerry
(Written and Authorised by Gerry Georgatos, Independent Candidate for Willagee, 9 Arion Avenue, Harrisdale, 6112)
Peter Kennedy on Politics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2009/11/09/2736986.htm
How do you branch stack Quaker consensus? And how do you ‘postal vote’ consensus.
Do they not use consensus in willagee, or are you just speaking shit again Gerry?
Ah. Now its interesting.
Seems that Gerry claims he has evidence that his preselection was white-anted by someone who admits having spread misconceptions.
As he says, no process can avoid the consequences of that kind of behaviour. Thats just people.
So Gerry (and wait till after the election if you like), do tell what the “baseless misconceived assumptions” were. Because they seemed to make a big difference. Its noteworthy that none of those participating in the consensus smelt a rat and felt they should block the consensus. That would get the preselection resolved another way. (I assume the process still works like that, but it is Fremantle-Tangney Greens who might have their very own ’special’ process)
Seems people have been hurt so don’t get stuck on providing bloggers with entertainment. Still its appreciated if you do.
DMX PRIME,
How is consensus reached when there are two distinct groups desiring different outcomes? I would assume that when one side realises it is in numerical minority, it yields. Thus, to ensure a result by consensus one might simply ensure a greater number of voices are able to speak for one side of the argument.
That said, the idea of using postal voting to ascertain consensus seems a little weird.
Thats not consensus Rewi, and its not how the Greens practice it, at least as far as I can tell as a non member. The greens have conflict resolution procedures and theres been a few members that have worked with activist groups (etc) in the community teaching how consensus works. The biggest misconception is that its supposed to be run as a sort of stand in for voting. Thats not it, its a process for finding mutual agreement that remains in mutual disagreement till it occurs. If no solution can be found, there are procedures to try and find it.
If I remember right, the greens run SOMETHING like a C+1 type model or something like that, a party member can correct me here, and assuming the greens are running things as is usual with their tradition, the idea of vote stacking is absurdist.
And ‘postal voting’ and ’secret ballots’(wtf?) don’t have a role in consensus other than as a request that “So and so member has requested a decision not be made till next week when she can present her concerns” , a procedure very few groups permit because generally a blocker will be asked for a counter proposal and to defend and explain the block , which makes no sense for someone to do not at the meeting.
Obviously secret ballots wont or cant happen because theres no ballot in the first place.
DMX PRIME,
Yes, the comments around voting seem out of whack with the notion of consensus.
I suspect, though, that it is entirely possible for the scenario I suggested for how a consensus could be perceived to have been achieved while not actually resolving the underlying conflict to occur. As you say, it’s not actually a consensus outcome, merely an acquiescence.
I’d also be interested to hear from a Greens WA member about how this works, particularly with time-sensitive decisions such as this, where a conflict has to be resolved in time to lodge a nomination with the WAEC.
That of course only works if the practice matches the theory. I’ve seen in other supposedly consensus based environments that one can have hostility, white-anting, etc and the rules and nature of the environment can be used as a weapon.
You all have it wrong me good friends. You can look up the Greens constitution on line. Having been a member of the Greens and Labor it all works the same. Labor often has a consensus approach.
The Greens do have ballot and with endorsements they mail out to all relevant members. They reserve consensus for issues not really the endorsements. It maybe that some groups achieve endorsements by consensus but that should be reserved for unopposeds and where it is obvious.
I understand that there was dismay at the meeting and it is correct to believe that the one set of supporters for Gerry surrendered to the Hsien supporters, the branch stackers, because the numbers were that way inclined. It was when the meeting finished that people were upset they were pushed into accepting consensus and not going to a vote on the night.
It is known that Gerry asked for a ballot at the previous meeting but one person, Maclaren probably, stood in the way. The rules were broken with this preselection. Georgatos had it for 12 months as a deal and that would take him to next year. They can’t go back on it so Maclaren suckered him into this trying to get in some soft middle of the road less controversial type into the deal. Me thinks she probably regrets it all as he is actually the best joe for the job and would have been the best asset the Greens could have scored since Valentine. Maclaren is in a shit fight at the moment with her party room who some are pretty tired of her and games – you know Walker, Scott, others, now Georgatos (of all people!), and some of us know other than Georgatos’ great history and genuineness it’s incredible Maclaren did this to him as this guy doesn’t shut up, he’ll fight tooth and nail for what he believes, maybe methinks she didn’t know him.
Nah, endorsements are done by vote and ballot and it is illegal to knock back a nominee’s request for this. There is no Quaker business in the Greens, they do it like the others, come to an agreement or go to the vote. There was a lot of pressure, and behinds the scenes stuff.
I don’t know why everyone is surprised by all this, it’s not like the first time the Greens have done this, they do all the time, the opportunities are so few in the Greens that the desperation is big. Georgatos shouldn’t be part of the Greens, he is too moral and honest for them, he is actually better off as either an independent or with Labor. His biggest mistake wasn’t joining the Greens it was not accepting Labor’s offers.
So yeah, no Quakers in the Greens, no consensus in reality, they do ballots on the night or by post and abuse and nepotism in the Greens is very big time, it’s the party of the few lets remember.
Hope this makes it more interesting for ya all… Frank A.
So Frank A…..are you saying Gerry was made an offer by Labor?? If so, what was the offer??
@Frank A: It’s quite clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You may have previously been a member of the Greens but are now not, otherwise you would know that your version of events are wrong. I presume that you have been given some information by some current members who choose to remain anonymous. With only anonymous sources and falsifications flying around I really have to express concern that these comments about Greens process are disinformation perpetuated at best by people with unresolved personal issues, at worst by other competing political interests.
For the record, I was at the meeting where the discussion about reaching consensus for pre-selection rather than a vote took place (6/10/09). The idea to seek consensus did not come from Lynn MacLaren but from another member who felt that it had been a highly effective process used by another group to pre-select member. All members at the meeting, including Gerry Georgatos, accepted it as a process, though there was certainly discussion about its merits over a ballot system. Nobody blocked it and they had the opportunity to do so.
At the pre-selection forum, I noted no dismay, nor a ’set’ of supporters for either nominee. There was no ‘push[ing] for consensus’ from anyone. For the record, I argued several of Gerry’s strengths during the dicussion and, in a straw poll used to garner the feelings of the members, I was one of less than a dozen people to show support for Gerry as a candidate. As far as I could tell, there was total support for Hsien in a similar straw poll (in which I, as well as everyone else that indicated support for Gerry that I could see, also indicated that they would support Hsien). When consensus over the decision to select Hsien was checked, nobody blocked it or raised further opposition. Consensus was checked for three times by the meeting’s convenor!
If anyone felt upset after the decision it should only be with themselves for not having the courage and integrity to stand up and argue for their position. There was every opportunity to do so. I’m a fairly new member of the Greens and yet I feel completely at ease engaging in healthy and respectful debate with everyone in our party. This includes our party’s members of parliament who, I should add, do not have any more authority within a group than any other member, are not always successful in convincing the group to accept their position, always give individuals fair hearing and are always willing to acknowledge and accept other positions within the group.
I agree that Gerry has an incredible record of working on social justice issues and admire him for this work. However he relied upon this work and his passion alone to persuade the members to pre-select him, and not on the selection criteria that were stated for the position. They were not all addressed satisfactorily; Gerry could publish those three selection criteria and his written response to them and this would be demonstrated.
DMX PRIME,
Is the use of straw polls to ‘garner the feelings of members’ part of the consensus process as you know it?
@ Rewi: I would like to answer you question (in post 273) as a Greens member and defend the consensus decision making process.
Firstly, I suggest that, in the context of this discussion, there would not be two distinct groups (as you suggest in posts 271). There would be one group with one common, desired outcome. This outcome would be explicitly framed as such in the lead up to and during such a meeting: in this instance, to pre-select the best candidate for the Willagee by-election.
With that in mind, and this is my own understanding of the process not an official practice and consensus decision making can taking many forms, I think that something along the following lines might work as a consensus process when pre-selecting a candidate ):
1. Make the specific selection criteria required for the best candidate well-known and allow nominees for pre-selection to present arguments as to why they meet them both in written form and in a public forum. These can be teased out with statements by a questions directed to the nominees in a public forum.
2. Facilitate extensive discussion amongst present members with roughly equal time given to the strengths and the weaknesses of each nominee and their ability to meet the specified selection criteria. This would ensure that numerical superiority didn’t distort discussion and that the focus was on the desired outcome of pre-selecting the best candidate rather than on personalities or irrelevant attributes.
3. Following the discussion, where there seems to be a clear leaning within the room, but not an identifiably definite trend, the convenor may take a straw poll on a question like “Who would be prepared to support Person A as the Candidate for pre-selection?” Let’s say around roughly a third of those present, maybe less than a dozen people, put up their hands in response.
4. Then the convenor asks something like “Who would be prepared to support Person B as the Candidate for pre-selection?” Let’s say everyone in the room puts up their hands, it is clear that person has the support of all party members who have chosen to attend.
5. The convenor observes that one person seems to have the support of all party members present and asks for any objections to the observation. The convenor might suggest that it appears that everyone would be happy with Person B to be the candidate, that this indicates that Person B is the person that we should endorse and asks if this is the consensus of the group and looks for any objections from the group.
6. When there are no objections at all, major or minor, the convenor checks that everyone is in agreement, checks a second time, checks a third time.
7. It is determined that a consensus has been reached and Person B is concluded to be the winning candidate for pre-selection.
Having taken part in this consensus decision making process recently, I can say that I’ve never been part of such a wonderfully democratic process with respect for all of a groups grassroots members. I feel VERY privileged to have taken part in it and am offended by the criticisms in some of the ill-informed comments that have been made about it. It was a rare and beautiful thing to have true ownership over the final decision and to share it with all of the other people in the room.
I should also point out that in the consensus process, I argued at point 2 for what I felt were the merits of both nominees and, at points 3 and 4, I indicated that I was prepared to support either nominees’ pre-selection. I had no vested interest in either of them. Had I any reason to feel one was incapable of achieving the outcomes sought through this process, I would certainly have issued opposition at points 5 and 6 and I could have used my right to block consensus had I thought that a candidate who was being overlooked was clearly, measurably better than the other. I am very happy with the outcome, moreso with the process, and imagine that I would have felt the same were the result reversed as the outcome would have been accepted by all members.
It is a shame that others do not have such integrity, don’t utilise the power that they have as an individual in this process and choose instead to add a point 8 to this process: verbalise dissent after the fact, powerlessly in the comments forum of a political blog site.
I’m sure hypothetical examples can be provided where this might not work or it may not be the case. However, I haven’t observed many political discussions where people with opposing views ‘yield’ or ‘acquiesce’, whether outnumbered or not; politics attracts unusually determined people
In fact, I should point out that I have seen people say that they ‘acquiesce’ only to have their acquiesence rejected by those to whom they acquiesce as it doesn’t represent a proper outcome of agreement.
On the issue of the time constraints in the context of a by-election, that is certainly an issue. However in this instance, the forum for pre-selection could have easily been done a week earlier had the writ for the by-election been delivered earlier. If you mean in terms of getting home for tea – or even breakfast! – when there is a deadlock, I haven’t seen that happen. I believe that the key to resolving deadlocks is to rephrase questions and see what members can agree on, on what issues consensus can be reached and see whether these positions can be used to reach a decision. For instance, and I’m speaking hypothetically, if “Who’s the best candidate [in line with the selection criteria]?” can’t be agree to, “Is there someone that we can all agree to support?” or “Is there anyone who would block one of the nominees?”. I’ve seen this done with other decisions. Meetings have run later than anticipated it is true but not needlessly so. Moreover, I think that those involved are generally happy at the length of the discussion as it meant that issues were all resolved.
Thanks Heath, for that excellent outline.
Just a clarification. I’ve been told that my description of point 4 is not accurate. In the case that I’m describing, two people did not put up their hands. I did not see this from where I was sat. With that in mind, I’d modify my description of point 5 to:
5. The convenor observes that one person seems to have the overwhelming support of party members present and asks for any objections to the observation. The convenor might suggest that it appears that we could move to reaching consensus that we could be happy with selecting Person B as the candidate, that this indicates that Person B is the person that we should endorse and asks if this is the consensus of the group and looks for any objections from the group.
However, and more importantly since straw polls are not a vote, just a test for feeling, my description of point 5 and 6 are accurate. Nobody objected at all to the decisions when they had a right to block.
Geez wheez Heath sounds like you are working with the Greens, like Scott, to dish all this out. Me thinks this be public relations. Heath, I may not be a member with the Greens and prefer Labor but I did not get my facts wrong. So, a few of us have to get together to try and piece all this.
We’re here to get to the action. Did you read yet the new Real Greens party in the Herald. Maybe William can put this up. I have signed the petition calling for this new political force!
Frank A.
Heath you made quite a few errors of your description of the meetings where Gerry was passed over for Hsien. I was there, and unlike yourself have been there for most of the last several years. I love the Greens but I don’t like what they are becoming and what they did to Gerry. It is terrible and painful to watch.
I know Gerry and we all know he does not twist anything. I know from him that when Carpenter quit Lynn called him up to meet for coffee and that within an hour or so he met with Lynn for coffee at the now famous Fidel’s in Fremantle and with his child in tow. She put to him that she wanted to re-open preselection because of new members. Codswallop. Him being naive or trusting like he is he bought it because he had been considering bringing back to the group, us, his endorsement for those he knew thought he was controversial in his being out there taking on the bad guys and wanted them to ask questions. Lynn planned to have him dumped because a few of them, led by Lynn, and Jan, and maybe one or two others, believed the lies about him that he is right in people’s faces getting the job done, which he does. They are the ones without the integrity to tell him this stuff and instead set up this horrible situation where they would have him outed for like Frank says the soft middle of the road type that hasn’t raised a voice to anyone.
You are wrong about how it came about. You too were at the meeting where preselection was first discussed at Sullivan Hall. Gerry asked that he had brought his preselection back so firstly people ask questions about his endorsement, because his endorsement couldn’t be challenged he had it for 12 months, that’s the deal. We can’t take it back unless we say why. No one said a why. Gerry asked the group he wanted them to be comfortable with him and wanted their support and wanted us to ask questions. Don’t you remember Lynn jumping up and saying NO, that what needs to be considered is the proposal for re-opening preselection altogether and not to discuss the endorsed candidate and whether we still want to go with him? Have you forgotten? Dave Ballantyne supported Gerry on this but Lynn was against it.
So who doesn’t have integrity here? We don’t. Gerry does. We made this guy feel crap without our support.
Do you forget Gerry’s concerns at that meeting that he was now stuck in a trust that we would do the right thing about process? Do you not remember him telling us he was worried about branch stacking, that all of sudden at the actual preselection meeting there would be people who never came before, mates of the new nominees? I do. I distinctly remember his words, “I’d cut my throat before I’d bring or even encourage a single person to a preselection because that’s branch stacking, I would not even encourage my partner to come if she were a Greens.” I remember him saying this and we all stayed quiet as he looked at all of us. What happened Heath? He was right. At the preselection there were half the members there who had not come before and most of them were mates of Hsien such as David Paris and Rachel Pemberton and all the others, the hanger ons of the party room types. You forget? Do you not remember that it was this group that argued for Hsien and had little good to say about someone they never met, though he has an enormous record as you point out? You argued for him but we gave in to Lynn and the branch stackers who came in with decision predetermined. Is this your beautiful democracy. Yes I let Gerry down but I didn’t know what to do and I didn’t think at the time.
Are you serious that Lynn said no more than others? She took control. And do you forget she had the temerity to stand up in the middle our group as the last speaker and talk loudly to us and rant about it not being Gerry’s time and to accuse him of not being a team player, and to keep on about it? Do you forget this? Why didn’t she say it to him in the meeting? Heath, I know Gerry and he is the greatest team player of all time. Look at his Students Without Borders, his Eightball program, his stewardship of the Guild. He is there for people, working with them. Lynn controlled the show.
You were part of the dozen or so who had come to meetings who supported Gerry but the more than dozen who turned up for Hsien had only blind factionalism in mind. Do you disagree. Yes you will because you are talking like a spin doctor.
Gerry has come out now and is taking on Lynn over what she did because he is disgusted with her whitewashing letter to the editor in the Herald. He may have kept quiet about it but can’t believe what she wrote and he believes she is unfit to be a politician, like most of them.
Heath get your facts straight. Gerry was not at the decision part of the meeting. He and Hsien were gone for more than an hour and a half for this. So don’t say wrong things. Remember, Hsien didn’t want to be part of it, Gerry conceded to Hsien though he thought they should be there to answer questions and correct anything. Well Lynn of course would have had a tough time lying about him if he was.
Also tell everyone how heated it was for a good part and how many of us were not happy that Lynn pushed for Hsien and that we argued that he was the better candidate and that he won the debate dead easy. Is this wrong.
I am sorry for Gerry he didn’t deserve what we did to him. He was elected unopposed in March with Adele for Fremantle and he for Willagee by consensus because both were unopposed. On this occasion he was not unopposed and I remember him asking for a ballot or vote when it was decided to reopen preselection and Lynn and Scott carried on about consensus. There is no consensus, it’s all crap.
Did you not see all the people who were apologising to him while the branch stackers stayed silent?
Of course you going to shoot back on behalf of Lynn, Jan and Scott.
I have to stay anonymous because like Gerry says we need to work together and I don’t want to get Lynn’s wrath and be the next in line. I am not tough like Gerry.
Fremantle Tangney friend
Me thinks this helps Heath and makes me look not so stupid. I accept what these people have said to me and what my experience of the Greens and other political parties has been. There is no consensus and there was none on the night. It was all push, push, push till the stackers got done what needed to be done. The fact it took so long does say much about the dissenters. It is laughable to believe in consensus.
I have spoken to four from the meeting and all give the same story and post analysis.
Frank A.
A friend of ours, as we are about to head off to something important, and later in the day, will catch Gerry at the Willagee fair, has this to write.
I would love to write reams on Gerry and who he is. Reading the local papers has saddened me to see this great human being damaged like this. I too have signed the petition for the Real Greens but I am sorry to see Gerry working so hard door knocking and paying out of his pocket to do what he sees he must do.
This man saved my life. He took me out of terrible circumstances and supported me through it all and helped me with education. I am still studying but I am alive. I love Gerry. Many people love and respect him, more love him than hate because of some tall poppy syndrome. He is always around for us.
I am angry that I have seen no good press for this man and it is all this bad press because of the dumb Greens. The Greens have never there for me when I needed help and not others too. It was this man.
What has Hsien done to deserve taking his endorsement. Nothing. She should go to Maylands and work hard there. Do things for people and community. What has Peter done to be given Willagee on a platter. Go to war that’s it. Gerry has saved so many lives. Listened to so many people. Changed so many things.
How can people go past his computer recycling program, more than 50,000 computers to the poor and needy. He started it from his home and it is the biggest in the country. What about Students Without Borders and all the fantastic programs he has created? At Murdoch one of the tutoring programs has over 100 tutors and is in big demand and he invented it. What about all the campaigns he has fought? What about all the bigshots and pollies he has taken on?
Who else would go to rehabilitation centres and everywhere were the poor, those of us so alone and desperate would be and help us? He saved me and he has never made me feel I owe him. Actually he always makes me feel that he owes me!
Talk to Rebecca Ozanne and Peta Millar about him, they love him for the work he does and he helped them with their campaign on single parent child subsidies for years till it happened what they were after.
Talk to Aboriginal people about him and all that he has done. Do you know how much work he does on so many things? He is a very smart man and what is beautiful about him is he isn’t afraid of rich bullies and the powerful and he will take it to them. If this is what made Lynn destroy his endorsement then this is ironic, and we know Gerry as the honest man he is and this is what happened.
I am so sad to see all this. He has so many awards, citizen of the year, community person of the state last year, his Students Without Borders has won everything under the sun and this happens to him. He has been nominated and won unsung hero awards and now for australian of the year and this is what happens to him.
When is someone going to print about him and his deeds and his greatness what they should?
Gerry is a good man, and I am not one of the guild crazies as someone described, I am a fan of his and I believe in him because I have seen him and know him and because he saved my life and never gave up on me. Peter, Henry and Hsien are not in his league.
To some of you drop the tall poppy syndrome and to others stop the bullshitting and to those of you who stood up for him, he deserves our support.
Annette
Okay, see you next time around. Frank A.
Sorry Frank A, I disagree with many of your points.
There are what I regard to be errors of fact or distortions and exaggerations. I don’t deign to correct them all because I’ve given my version of events and I’m also a bit lost in what you’ve posted as the structure of what you’ve posted often doesn’t read very well.
I would like to address though the point that you raised about the earlier meeting at Sullivan Hall to discuss reopening pre-selection. You claim that Gerry needed to have reasons given as to why the pre-selection would be reopened. This may be true; I can’t recall whether this was necessary or not. However, your claim that these reasons weren’t provided is a nonsense.
I can say this because I personally raised one reason: the membership of the group had grown (including the addition of myself) significantly since the previous pre-selection. I think this was by 30 people, or about 10%. Those figures may be slightly wrong. These members, including myself, had the right to voice an opinion on reopening pre-selection. There were several other reasons presented by other members.
There was certainly discussion as to the merits of re-opening versus not re-opening. So reasons for not going through a pre-selection were also made. Personally I, despite supplying a reason why pre-selection should be re-opened, was in favour of retaining Gerry as the candidate when I went to the meeting, partly because I thought Gerry would do a good job and partly because it would delay a start to campaigning.
At the end of the meeting, consensus determined that the arguments for reopening it were valid enough. I was certainly persuaded. That was the democratic outcome of the discussion. Nobody sought to block it.
I should add that another one of the reasons given for reopening was that it would give Gerry, or any nominee, the chance to argue a case for pre-selection, the process of which would only make a person more focussed and clear in their position. Personally, I’m very much in favour of engaging in democratic processes not stopping them. I really don’t see how people can object to it. If you were at the pre-selection meeting, or your supporters were, where were their objections? I was waiting to be convinced. I had, as I’ve acknowledged, thought that Gerry would be a decent candidate.
Frankly, Gerry didn’t convince me of that on the night. His supporters didn’t really try to either. There was ample opportunity to do so. It is highly disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
You mention two people’s names in your argument for why the meeting was stacked but I don’t know how two people stack a 34 person meeting. Perhaps a couple of people could influence the outcome of a secret ballot but not in a consensus meeting, especially since I don’t think that they added very much to the discussion. I’m not going to speak for them, I don’t know them very well, have briefly met both of them in social situations prior to the pre-selection meeting. They are Greens members and are entitled to a say in decisions. I don’t know how you can argue against their participation, or their right to have an opinion. As did Lynn MacLaren for that matter.
I’m not a “spin doctor” for the actual Greens any more than you are one for the faux “Real Greens”. That is to say, I hope, not at all. I really have no idea who you are but I’d like you to at least show some respect for readers of this forum and not slander me with such ridiculous comments. It doesn’t do either of us any credit.
I feel qualified to write on this issue because I am not part of this fictitious cabal of “Hsien” or “Gerry” supporters. I’m just a Greens member of 9 months and a fan of the issues that both the Greens and, as far as I can tell, Gerry and other eminent, just members of our society argue for. I’m not doing anything for Lynn MacLaren or Scott Ryan (who is Jan???); I don’t know them very well at all but I think they’re both really good, hard-working people with passions or the things that I value. I think much the same way of Gerry, though the continued distortion his supporters, like yourself, post here the more I doubt myself on this though far more than anyone within the actual Greens has done.
I sincerely hope that the Gerry can convince the members of his “Real Greens” to actually contribute to these greens and social justice issues, both in Willagee and more broadly, rather than creating a public profile and policy based on attacking the actual Greens. We both know that the only harm this does is to the progress that green values are making in our society.
Sorry, I see what you’ve done (incorporating other people’s posts). The structure is a little clearer now.
Hello Heath, Frank, Annette and all you nom de plums,
Truly, I am not appeased by all this. Is there any real point to arguing as vehemently as you have been? However a good argument is better than silence. Heath is contextually correct about the greater purposes and the goals within their whelm that we need to pursue in light of warranted social and cultural change.
I am proud of who I am and in the fact that I am prepared to engage in this type of Citizen Media. I am often advised to not put things in writing, and only to limit to oral comments and to start trusting in public relations personnel. I was relatively recently advised of this by an elected Greens parliamentarian who unfortunately I have little professional respect for. I don’t hide behind ‘no comment’ and ’silence’ or any form of third party ’spin’.
To hopefully ease the divisiveness apparent in this blog I am prepared to provide some of the facts.
The new party which we will launch with good speed, is not to be called the Real Greens, rather this has been an inspirational working title. However, we will be an alternative to all the parties. The more parties the better. At this time I am facilitating the launch of another political party, the Australian Aboriginal Peoples Party, which will ensure that our First Nation Peoples will achieve their rightful voice in Parliament. This is the inspiration of one Marianne Mackay and I am proud to assist and advise them along the way.
In terms of my endorsement as the Greens candidate for Willagee, it was deemed for at least 12 months since March and it could not be challenged unless there were reasons that could be upheld for dis-endorsement. This was not the case and if it were the Fremantle-Tangney group would not and could not be the mechanism for this.
It is true a certain person did disgracefully deceive me. In my own right, separate the deceptions of one particular individual, I was intending to discuss my endorsement with members in order to answer questions and any concerns however this was usurped by the deception of an otherwise noteworthy member. I trust people and will continue to do so. This person lied so blatantly right into my eyes and in front of my child that it is seriously disturbing. I will continue to pursue remedy and conciliation in the interests of the Greens and its membership and in the interests of community. It is not likely I will ever rejoin the Greens however I feel a moral responsibility to address such wrongs especially where I have such first-hand witness.
The opening up of my pre-selection is a first in terms of its reference I had been provided in lieu of the the minimum 12 months endorsement. It had not happened prior to mine.
A couple of persons within the group had bought into rumours that I maybe quite the outspoken type, thus possibly controversial, and my take on others attitude to resolve on behalf of a just outcome may not be what the Greens at this time needed in terms of their perceived growth. I dispute this. However, this noteworthy member rather than extend me the courtesy of advisement of such concerns, or the ask of my person to put myself before scrutiny unbelievably to deceive me with lies that we should propose opening up pre-selection, which without my support could not be re-opened, on the premise we now had new members to Willagee and Fremantle-Tangney and the ‘political landscape’ had changed. This is outright deceit. Heath, you were not there when I was lied to, please leave this imperative part alone.
Willagee is made up of only 36 members and rightly it is they who should have voted on their candidate. New members to Willagee were only one in the time since the presumed Greens Fremantle victory. Total Fremantle- Tangney membership is 194. If we cared about new membership then we would have proceed to a mailed out vote, as we did for the lead senate candidate, as we do for East Metro positions, so why different in South Metro? New membership is not an issue, nor a legitimate argument, it was just a rouse. I did care to give new members and old members a say, and ask for their input on my endorsement, however I did not expect an ulterior agenda. If we follow this philosophy of new membership then we need to re-open up all endorsements.
One cannot argue social justice and human rights when one does not live them. If the Greens live social justice and human rights, and believe in procedural fairness and natural justice then they must live them at all times. This particular person did not live them and continues to abuse these representations. The Greens have let themselves down. Heath, you, as I did, went to the pre-selection with an investiture of faith and goodwill. This is not a naive moral proposition and I applaud you for it. It is progressive thinking and the signification of conscience aligned to reasoning. However others, an undercurrent of malaise, engineered an outcome in terms of manipulating that investiture of faith and goodwill.
I do not respect any politician who lies and deceives as a means to any end. Personally, I think a politician who blatantly deceives and lies as a means to an end should resign from parliament. This view goes back to Plato, and his reasoning for argument for the Guardians. Such a politician should resign their ‘calling’ and undertake a self-education into propriety and honour – these should be requisite criteria for parliament.
Heath, pre-selection was opened up on a series of lies and deceptions and I was never extended the opportunity to actually address matters unbeknown to me. At the meeting where we decided to ‘open up’ my endorsement, sorry Heath it was not yourselves that made the decision, rather unbelievably it was I. Hearing Lynn object to my right to have you all hear any concerns about me as your endorsed candidate and then a couple of others join, particularly one of the co-convenors, and comment on my profile I then stated, ‘How can I proceed as your endorsed candidate having heard even from one of you concerns about me?’ As a result of this comment which conceded the opening up of my endorsement, a co-convenor stated that we now have pre-selection opened up and hence we moved on to the subjects of criteria for nominations, deadlines and pre-selection.
Heath, the previous bloggers are correct, that at that meeting I did note my serious concerns regarding the prospect of ‘branch stacking’ which I do know to be common practice. What is branch stacking? How can we define it? Is it fair to describe it in terms of people who have either never turned up to any prior meetings or for example had not turned up to meetings for a year or two, and then surprisingly turn up to pre-selection? Is it fair to describe it as members who are also friends or supporters of a particular candidate and who likewise have not turned up to recent meetings? Is it fair to describe branch stacking as the encouragement of people to turn up and vote in a certain way? It is true that I did not encourage a single person, supporter or friend who were members to support me or to even turn up. It is true that I would have considered this branch stacking. It is true that I have laid these allegations to Giz Watson. It is true that the Greens have not considered them in terms of procedural fairness and natural justice and in the pursuit of remedy and conciliation. It is true that for the sake of the Greens future prospects I have asked the Greens, whether I ever rejoin or not, for them to work with me to remedy their processes. Heath, it is true that I believe there was branch stacking. It is true that there were a significant number of members present who could be defined as ‘branch stackers’. It is true that a number of members present raised their concerns with me, on the night and since.
Heath, I understand that you feel you were part of a beautiful democratic experience. I did not feel this democracy on the night nor since. Heath, there are the great issues and goals that we need to focus on. However, I am the sort of person who believes it is important, and as I advocated on the night, in who represents these issues and how they are understood and disseminated. When people lie and deceive they are not the people passionate or erudite to represent such pursuit of change agency. I have been taking on such people all my life because I know the horrific damage that they do rather than any noteworthy long term good.
Heath, thank you for your comments regarding your initial support for my endorsement. However I am very surprised by your comments that you regard that I did not demonstrate as a candidate better than Hsien on the night. I like Hsien however I am an honest person and example is everything to me, I don’t know how it is possible that I could have finished second best in the debate or demonstrated the lesser. However though you say you argued at first on my behalf as the better candidate you are entitled to your views and judgments.
To all of you, human nature is complex and often the simple is made difficult. We are always in situations where we need to manage consequence. How we manage it is important however silence is not the way. Civility is important and as Gandhi proved, civility and objection can go hand in hand. One must not sit by and allow a wrong, as this (Socratic) is doubly wrong.
I know what happened. I lived it. I endured it. I have the conceded admissions from those in question and from the ‘engineer of the outcome’. What I would like to achieve is remedy, conciliation, a public apology (from the Greens) and honour (from the Greens), and these will at least demonstrate to me that they (the Greens) care more about the people, the planet, the goals than they do about themselves. My Labor and Liberal friends, as I have friends everywhere, describe to me the naivety of my position, in that I believe that power should be willed away as Heath in his way eloquently describes, and I agree with, however my Labor and Liberal friends (parliamentarians) suggest to me that the Greens are now perceiving themselves as a ‘party’, they have grown, and that it is all about ‘power’, and the gaining of more of it.
They describe to me that it is no different, what happened to me with the Greens, in Labor and Liberal rank and file meetings. That branch stacking is common practice, that the abuse of power in pursuit of power is all that matters. Yes, in the last year since Fremantle’s presumed Greens victory the Greens WA have talked about themselves finally as a ‘party’ and what I have seen demonstrates what my Labor and Liberal parliamentarian friends describe to me. However, I shall never concede to such a will to power and rather I do believe, as may Heath, in the willing away of power. Without it there is no grassroots and participatory democracy.
My parliamentarian friends describe that there is no pursuit of the best candidates rather only the pursuit of power. I cannot accept this as hence all is dutifully lost.
I have watched the Greens since the 1980s move on from activists and campaigners to coordinated campaigns and submissions, to elected parliamentarians (firstly in a more independent type status) to a coalescing as the ‘Greens’, part of the world wide ecological movement, supported by such works as ‘Silent Springs’, and devolve to compromises such as movement away from the saving of all forests to saving of parts of forests, to moratoriums on some, and eventually to only designated habitats on interim registers. The Greens are a wide church of disenfranchised Laborites, Liberalites, some left wingers and right wingers and sometimes the goals are not understood, and they are still without economic policies and quotients however in the sweep of statements they support rights issues, certain human rights understandings, redress to the disadvantaged, and the control of certain of the world’s poor practices and the minimisation of the decimation of the earth’s resources for no other good reason but for production and commodification. The Greens have every opportunity to be whoever they want to be, however it will not arrive by a will to power rather by the willing away of power as their forebears intended and sacrificed for. The Labor Party, during the early twentieth century in terms of its intentions was ignited more so as the party of the other-regarding rather than the self-regarding and it too devolved because of a will to power rather than the willing way of power, which in effect means to ensure education to all, equity and justice.
Love you all, supporters, detractors, the non plussed, and the deceitful and nescient,
Gerry
Primum Non Nocere
(Written and Authorised by Gerry Georgatos, Independent Candidate for Willagee, 9 Arion Avenue, Harrisdale, 6112)
Quick reminder Gerry.
Your not in the guild anymore, and because your not bullying teenagers this time, you might find people actually start fact-checking your bullshit this time, especially when your bullshit involves whispering campaigns and blatant defamation of other adults whos reputations are also their livelyhoods.
You could have bowed out, or even run this honestly, but its the same old bloody scorched earth “Well I’m not saying xxx but OTHER PEOPLE might infer it” smear tactics you’ve always used. Pathetic.
After a chat with my mathematically inclined flatmate, I’m going to call *utter shenanigans* on the claim of 360 members for Gerrys “real greens” (which actually cant be the name, according to WAEC because , and I quote “# be an existing party name or nearly resemble a party name”)
Anyway, lets do the maths!
in 48 hours, Gerry has (A) drafted a constitution for his new party, and presumably appointed the foundation committee to approve it, yada yada, confirmed the constititution is compliant with the waec rules and THEN designed and printed out membership forms for at LEAST 360, but presumably 500.
So, 48 hours
less, say, 1 hour to heroically and speedily write a constitution, which at the start of the marathon he’s called, say 5-6 people to come around so by the time its finished they can have a meeting and ratify it.
47 hours…
Meeting takes 1 hour, presumably not by consensus (!!!! seriously consensus is hard !!!!), and its decided to run, the constitution is accepted, everyone w00ts and gets to work.
46 hours…
An ABN is hastily obtained form the Tax dept (its all online now) and papers are dispatched off to a lawyer who rings back and says “Its all cool for cats! The WAEC is down with this!”
45 hours…
With all things looking good, a quick membership form is drafted up and fired into a big fat photocopier . hopefully not the guild one! That’d be a misuse of funds, so I’ll presume its his own photocopier or maybe the post office. So the with the journey too and from the post office we are left with
44 hours…
Its time to start recruiting, because the worlds fastest crossing of t’s and dotting of i’s has occured and now its time to get members!
44 hours , is 4 hours short of two days. So we can assume about 8 hours sleep, perhaps 2-3 hours of family time, and an hour of wake up ,shower and get out to start working. Also since gerry lives out in bumblefeck harrisdale, lets take out an hour of transport.
44-12 hours
That leaves just 32 hours in which he got about 360 memberships.. Now remember, this is *memberships*, not just signatures.
Each member has to fill in a form called a RM01. The form has the following fields:
First name , Sirname ,Date of Birth ,Given names, Residential Address, City/suburb, State , Postcode , Telephone (W) ,Telephone (H) , Facsimile , then some standard ‘i agree blah blah’, followed by a signature and date.
If they don’t fill that form in, they are NOT a member.
So, 360 members , in 48 hours, minus about 4 hours of manic setting up a formal party (it would be fraudulent to ask people to sign a RM01 for a party that doesnt exist yet, so before he did, he would have had to convene a board meeting to agree on a constitution. My guess for ALLLL this is 4 hours because Im a genernous dude. And minus 12 hours of not being a cyborg , ie sleep/food/kids/driving to work.
So 360 RM01 compliant memberships in 21 hours?
Thats a new fully agreed up member , RM01 compliant, stat decced, and fees collected member every 5 minutes and 30 seconds.
Bravo dude! You’ve made political history with what might well be the fastest growing party in history!
Or your just making stuff up.
One of the two
As an addendum to the above, for the value of “21″, read “32″. Its getting late. I’ll also add I dont actually know if you need a stat dec to join a party, having never joined one. But my brisk read of the WAEC rules made it sound like it. IANAL.
Hello DMX or XXX,
You’re a mate of BOP’s and like I’ve already offered BOP, you too are welcome to a coffee and a chat with me. It’ll always be there for the taking.
You’ve made some negative commentary in this blog site, factually incorrect, relating to me and other events that I have not replied to. You are entitled to your opinion and views and if I put myself out there in the public domain in pursuit of political office as I have, whether that can be achieved, then I have to deal with the criticism. It comes with the territory and it is obviously at my discretion whether I should respond or not, and usually I do. I accept criticism and I have been dealing with it for years.
XXX, I have never engaged in dirty campaigns or smear tactics and it is wrong for you to make such claims and assertions. Like BOP you have barely shared a word with me in all the years we have crossed paths. I love conversation, even civilly confrontational conversation, I love a hearty debate, and I love challenging comment.
In terms of the Guild of Students I have done the best job one can in terms of financially steering this boat. In terms of my colleagues they are all adults, we are made up of over twenty full time personnel who are all adults. We are supported by a hundred plus casuals a year. The elected councillors are adults, and the Murdoch Guild because of its high intake of mature age students has councillors from all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, of all ages, some older than I!
If you ever got to know the Guild of Students in my time you would have discovered that we have enjoyed the highest morale, positive working relationships while recognising our demarcated roles, and the support of each other and the ongoing valued friendships. Your statements are accusatory without grounding and without ever having engaged me or others, and you rely on distant assumptions. I am still at the Guild and will be till XMAS, and my door is open to you, to anyone, and if you would like a coffee and a chat then that’s on offer.
In terms of statements I make, or comments about others, I have ensured that I have substantively engaged with them, that I have extended every courtesy and opportunity and I always stand by my statements, and when I am wrong, as those around me know, I am the first to admit a mistake and then do everything I can to correct it, to remedy it, to do the right thing.
My work number is 9360 6288, my mobile is 0422 638 324, and I can often be found in my office, or with Students Without Borders.
Kindly, Gerry
So, let me get this right.
You want to avoid divisiveness by not only running against the party that failed to endorse you, but by also seeking to establish a party that will directly compete with it and the name of which you are seeking to appropriate?
That’s very funny.
Labor’s worried about low turn-out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/16/2743551.htm
Peter Kennedy on the Willagee Launch.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2009/11/16/2743694.htm
@Gerry: Thankyou for the moderation and clarity of your response. For the most part, I think that we would simply disagree on the interpretation of some key events.
I would like to clarify six points however, three points about what I have said and three about the process so that there is no misunderstanding.
1. I have in no way suggested that I was present when the proposition that the “‘political landscape’ had changed” was put to you privately. I stated that at the October 6 meeting at Sullivan Hall, as an argument in favour of reopening pre-selection, I had pointed out that membership had increased significantly and that I felt this was a reason for re-selecting a candidate. It was unprompted by anyone else, it was not raised in emails prior to the meetings (I have checked) and my recollection is that it was the first time during that meeting that this idea had been raised. I don’t see how you can discount this reason when you said that you did not want to represent the Greens in Willagee without the trust, faith and support of its members and, as far as new members were concerned, this trust, faith and support had not been checked.
2. I have in no way disputed that you raised the matter of branch stacking at an earlier meeting. For the record, I will confirm that you definitely did. My memory is that it came after I raised a concern that a popular rather than meritorious candidate could be pre-selected as a result of re-opening the process. However, I do question whether the meeting was stacked; I do question the belief, constitutionally or otherwise, that members should not be able to have a voice in party matters simply because they have not attended meetings for a prescribed period; I do question whether a postal vote would have actually made much difference for you, such is the show of support that I have seen for Hsien since pre-selection; I do question your supporters’ lack of support at the forum, either by not turning up in sufficient numbers or by not arguing a case for your selection with enough verve; and I do question your reasoning, however altruistic, behind not encouraging people to support your candidature at the meeting, either by attending or speaking up loudly for your vision. If they shared your passionate vision for Willagee and Western Australia, why wouldn’t you encourage them to attend in numbers? That’s not corruption; it’s promoting shared vision and a legitimate means of having it enacted. I don’t know whether members were encouraged to attend or not by others but to my mind if activists and advocates don’t seek solidarity or a show of support from like-minded others then they would never make the changes that they seek in the world. This is markedly different to ‘stacking’ where people who care precious little for the real outcomes of a decision simply attend and vote as a favour to their friends. I do not believe that this happened at all in this context. We may disagree on this interpretation of stacking but it is irrelevant anyway since the decision of the forum was made by consensus not by ballot, where stacking will definitely affect the outcome.
3. I did not argue that you were the “better” candidate and have not said that. At the pre-selection meeting I offered up several of your strengths that I thought qualified you to be an excellent candidate. When weighed against the selection criteria for candidature, on balance I was undecided between you and Hsien and willing to support either of you.
4. The pre-selection meeting was not a debate. It was never described as such. It was a forum, essentially a public interview process, with nominees defending their credentials against a specified set of criteria. I don’t doubt the passion and honesty with which you responded but I do feel that there were some questions that you did not address very well, including the question that I posed incidentally.
5. My understanding of The Greens (WA) constitution is that it is not the right of Willagee members alone to select their representative but those of the group which, unless I’m mistaken, is based on Federal electorates.
6. It may be that you alone could reopen pre-selection; I can’t dispute this. You did send out an email asking people to attend that meeting to discuss whether you should continue as the Greens candidate for Willagee though. At that meeting there was general agreement, I daresay consensus, that it would be in the best interest of the members and party to do so. Nobody, including yourself, chose to block the proposal that pre-selection being reopened. I believe that it was highly admirable on your part to re-open the process and contest pre-selection again. I also still believe that it was the right decision to do so, regardless of the outcome.
The name must not:
* contain more than 6 words
* be obscene or offensive
* be an existing party name or nearly resemble a party name
* be a public body name, or nearly resemble a public body name
* include the words “royal” or “independent”
* otherwise cause confusion if registered.
In other words, on point 3 and point 6, its disqualified.
As to a federal party name;-
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registration_Decisions/legal-advice-similar-names.pdf
Basically similar deal.
So whats going on here? As I’ve somewhat comprehensively proved, Gerry does NOT have 350 members (And no, a petiton or email list is not valid) short of something utterly supernatural happening.
AND because theres no party name that anybody knows of , that means that there are precisely ZERO members, because if there is no name, NOBODY could have filled out an RM01 form.
Now one can’t cast aside the possibility 350 people, at a rate of about one every 5 minutes has been asked on faith to fill an RM01 with no party name , basically saying “Yo its cool G man, I’ll fill out a form letting you enrol me into a party of your choice”, but in truth, I highly doubt it, and it probably wouldn’t be legal anyway.
Except not quite. It is at least clear from the AEC link above that “Liberals for Forests” and “Progressive Labour Party” would not be disqualified through similarity to Liberal or Labor. For an application by a Real Greens to be refused, it would have to be deemed there was a higher “real chance” of a) the party being mistaken with the Greens, or b) sufficient uncertainty being created that voters could not cast an informed vote, than there was for LFF, PLP, the Liberal Democratic Party (which both the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats objected to) and the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party (objection from the Fishing Party).
Thwarted in its original endeavour to smite the LFF, the Howard government added s 129(1)(da) to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 2004:
There is no equivalent of this in the WA Electoral Act. S 62J(d) is equivalent to the CEA’s long-existing s 129(1)(d):
However, the AEC believes the 2001 ruling would get LFF off the hook even in relation to (da), as it was deemed “unlikely that any elector, seeing the two names on a ballot paper, will draw the conclusion that ‘liberals for forests’ is a political party related to the Liberal Party of Australia or any of its State divisions”. I gather this was never tested, because LFF did not re-register when all parties without existing parliamentary representation were deregistered to give effect to the new rules. However, objections to the LDP and AFLP have since been overruled.
That’s point 3, anyway. There is no equivalent to WA’s “otherwise be likely to cause confusion if registered” in the CEA.
@Gerry: I have a question about your by-election campaign though, which might be a refreshing change from talking about intra-party conflicts
I’d like to point out that, although I am a member of The Greens (WA), I’m engaging in the following discourse as an individual interested in this by-election and not at the behest of The Greens or any of its members. The views that follow are entirely my own.
You preferenced Labor over the Greens or, if you prefer, Peter Tinley over Hsien Harper and stated that this is due to Mr Tinley’s “skills and capacities and knowledge” and not out of spite. I am willing to accept this. You say that you’ve discussed issues with all candidates but you don’t mention Mr Tinley’s or Labor’s positions on issues in your reasoning for preferences. I’m curious about this because of what I see as significant contradictions between what I understand to be your position on certain issues and those of your number two preference. I’ll provide three examples.
Firstly, I would question Mr Tinley’s ability to sympathise with, much less represent, the high number of public housing residents in the Willagee electorate given that this self-described ’small businessman’ is reported to be evicting twenty low-paid workers from their dongas up in Port Hedland before Christmas as part of an $11million development planned by his company. Mr Tinley apparently claims the right to develop his business at their expense. I am not commenting on whether this is his right or not but it does indicate that he is insensitive to the conditions of the low-paid workers and their housing needs. Port Hedland is a township where there is a gross shortage of accommodation. That which exists is highly expensive. I wonder about his resolve to defend his constituents if faced by property developers or real estate companies claiming their right to develop their businesses, arguing that moving public housing out of Willagee would improve property values in the area. I don’t believe that Mr Tinley shows enough commitment to this issue, an issue that you’ve identified as being important for people in the Willagee electorate.
Secondly, in yesterday’s issue of The West Australian Mr Tinley has identified the issue of law and order as part of his campaign. The Labor Party supports the State government’s Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill (2009), subject to amendments, which will produce a law removing the requirement for police to have reasonable suspicion before subjecting individuals to searches. Their amendments do not make this law any more palatable. I have called Mr Tinley to ask about his position regarding these laws on behalf of two friends, both Willagee residents, who are currently overseas and will be voting by post. He has not returned my calls. I can only assume that his identification of law and order as an issue and Labor’s support for a version of a ‘stop and search’ law indicates his own support for it despite the fact that there is no evidence that it will reduce crime. There is evidence that it will unfairly impact upon the most marginalised in our society: at risk youth, Indigenous Australians and those with mental health issues. Mr Tinley has stated in The Fremantle Herald that Willagee, due to the amount of public housing, is over-represented by people with mental health issues. I can’t imagine that they, nor the Indigenous members of the community, nor at risk youth, nor anyone on the margins of our society will respond passively to a challenge to what has hitherto been their basic rights. It won’t have missed people’s attention that the first two people charged under the new mandatory sentencing laws for assaulting public officers had mental health issues. As a matter of social justice, I find these laws deplorable and think that the parliamentarians who vote for them, amended or otherwise, should be ashamed of themselves. Frankly, I cannot understand why you would preference a candidate or party that supports these laws in any form.
Finally, given your work in the field of education, I question the your giving preferences to any state Labor candidate given that party’s record on education while in government. That government’s policies on curriculum and educational change and their inability to implement them sensitively and with satisfactory recognition for teachers’ conditions caused huge increases in workload and stress for primary and secondary teachers. Furthermore, their inability to bargain in good faith with the SSTUWA during the EBA negotiations of 2003 and 2008, as well as their initial and long-running refusal to release the Twomey report into public education, and then a failure to address several of the key recommendations contained therein when they eventually made it public, resulted in massive opposition from state school teachers and widespread industrial action that impacted on student outcomes, reduced valuable extra-curricular activities, caused many teachers to leave the profession and created a teacher shortage. Their policy to address teacher shortages by importing teachers from overseas on visas and to give them three year contracts is now resulting in many excellent Australian teachers on year-long fixed term contracts in high schools losing their positions in 2010 because of the half-cohort year. This particularly affects rural townships where these soon to be jobless teachers have, for years in some cases, contributed immensely to and become an important part of these small communities. Given that he will be a member of the Labor Party and, as you have pointed out in letters that I have read, this party requires its members vote in parliament in line with party policy, I feel that support for a Labor candidate is support for further turmoil in our state education system.
So my question is this: why have “skills and capacities and knowledge” and not specific positions on issues influenced your decision to give Mr Tinley your second preference?
There are many people whose beliefs, intentions and actions I would object to who have an excellent resume of ‘’skills and capacities and knowledge”. I don’t see this as a reason to support such a person when it may mean that these characteristics are more effectively used to achieve ends that work against the things that you value.
I don’t have much time at hand and I’ll briefly reply to posts.
Rewi, I am not setting up parties to oppose the Greens rather we have preliminarily begun work on one Party as an alternative to all other parties – I presume this as positive.
On another note, on November 16, I facilitated the first meeting of another party, the Aboriginal Peoples Party – The Party now has a Secretary and a President, and I am also a member of this party, as members can be any Australian elector. The endorsed candidates for all seats shall be only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This is historical and overwhelmingly overdue in ensuring the voice our Aboriginal Australians, and for them to ensure remedies and solutions and positive pathways, not diluted in any form. They shall be ready with suitably endorsed candidates by the ensuing Federal Election. The first meeting was held at Derbarl Yerrigan, the Aboriginal Health Centre, in East Perth. Isn’t this the most inspiring pursuit and the way forward that Aboriginal people have been looking towards?
DMX, if you read the posts properly or in their entirety you would not be missing the facts. If you read them again you will note that the title “Real Greens” was noted only as a working title. You’ll read the official name of the Party either in the coming newspapers or in either a petition for the Party that you may come across, or if you’re interested in joining then on the RMO1, or if you ask nicely I’ll jot it in a blog post!
The more parties we have the better every party shall be, in terms of it objects and goals.
Heath, your views are yours and I respect this right. Your interpretation of the evening is your own and I respect this. I am joyed to hear the support you describe for Hsien within the Party and I am glad that she has this support. Everyone deserves appropriate support.
Heath, I don’t have the time to get into semantics, or the wider scape of interpretations. I know what happened and that’s life, I’ll live with it, as I do, and what others wish to make of it or how they wish to manage it is up to them. I find it interesting that you recourse to human rights issues throughout your document however in some uncertain way abrogate the rights of others when in defense of your views and interpretations. Lets leave this one.
Heath, in terms of preferences – I do not place the stock on them that others do – Let us see who the Greens preference, shall they preference me, who they’ve claimed is the only legitimate candidate that they can preference. I’ve experienced how the Greens go about preferencing with the Greens, from within, at Fremantle-Tangney. I was appalled at the compromises and the bargaining. It was I that argued merit based preferencing with them. The Greens preferenced the Liberals in a preference swap to score Fremantle. The Liberals campaigned for the Greens, and distributed for the Greens at Polling Booths to ensure a Labor loss. It was I that argued that Tagliafierri should not be allocated 11th on the Greens preference ticket just because Labor was so childish to put the Greens last. Okay, I know, you will note that you were not yet a member. As time goes by, as it did for me, I went from being enthused by the beauty of the membership and its grassroots democracy to frustrated from their inconsistent processes and closed in circle and the notion that the Greens are ‘perfect’. There are still many wonderful, mostly potential, things about the Greens. It is people who let hope down, not the ideals.
Labor preferenced me on my record and achievements. In time I made a merit based decision. I never joined Labor, and as a result I am not in Parliament, when I could have been as a Labor parliamentarian, because of their notion of ‘caucus’. I agree with many of their policies however I disagree on others and I am especially frustrated by their compromising on outcomes and their inability to expedite change agency.
However Parliament is strangled with politicians with no economic knowledge, no policy developing skills, no deep knowledge in many of the policies and their impacts they pursue. WE DO NOT NEED MORE OF THESE PEOPLE. You can educate the knowledgeable and skilled, and those with capacity however it is problematic to train those with well meaning in skills and capacities.
On the surface I agree with many things Hsien has to say and I respect her and I expect Hsien to become a Parliamentarian within the next half decade.
In terms of public housing – I have discussed this with Peter Tinley, and he too shares many same concerns and views. I found his understanding of the problems refreshing. You have made judgments of him based on other criteria and these in real terms do not necessarily stack up. I am not putting a case here for Peter as the best candidate. I am the best candidate, otherwise I would not be contesting this election and getting this issue of the best candidate into the public domain. Peter does have a social conscience, so do Hsien and Henri, it comes down to what they believe.
In terms of the Greens I disagree that they have an economic policy, I disagree that they created the ‘Green jobs’, I disagree that they created the ‘6,000 Green jobs’, they had a hand in supporting this advent, however this is appalling spin, I disagree that fully understand equitable social justice and human rights, I disagree that they understand Indigenous issues (how many Indigenous people are part of the Greens or work for them or are in parliament – ZERO… Recently a Greens parliamentarian was asked about this and his appalling and shameful reply was “oh… we once had an Aboriginal person who worked for us part time, a long time ago…” Disgusting? So much for affirmative action and equitable social inclusion.
I disagree with the Greens and Labor pushing for the Prostitution Bill. This is an immature and ill conceived Bill, and if you’d been around when I took the Greens on with this Bill NOT ONE OF THEM could handle my questions or had any knowledge or knew what they were talking about. If they are no more than a sweep of statements when putting policies together then this is sickening. This Bill is destroying lives. Have you done what I have, or have any Greens, Laborites and Liberalites and gone out into the rehab centres, crisis centres and the ’streets’ to bring people out of this nightmare. I have and it has forever changed my life.
I do not support the Criminal Investigation Amendment Bill (2009). I am against such exemptions and such powers. I am for equitable human rights and that they should be chartered and legislated.
In terms of Education, I have often asked the Greens about Education, and they have always replied that this is not one of their immediate goals and therefore they do not have research, views or policies relating to it. I am sure you’ll find that they can give you something to whip through here however Heath this is their representation to me and they have no immediate position on Education.
Education, primary, higher and tertiary is a difficult one to work with and most of it relates to funding, its economic underwriting. I understand your concerns and I agree with them. However on Education I’d love to talk to you at length if you ever wanted this because I have my views, experiential and research. Labor actually has done many positive things, especially in infrastructure under the Gallop Government in WA, with new schools, and resources and it has tried to understand education, which is a difficult ask. I’d love to work in Parliament on Education as I believe I can really contribute.
I have always stated that my decisions are merit based and to answer your question I have taken both policies, specific positions and capacities into account. I have voted for many Greens in my time, for Geoff Gallop, for whomever premised on merit. I did not agree to the Greens Fremantle HTV card earlier in the year. I voted on merit. I deal preferences on merit.
I wish everyone well, and I congratulate Peter, Hsien and Henri for bringing issues and ideals into the public domain.
If there are errors and typos I wrote this flat out. Apologies in advance.
Kindly, Gerry
“(Written and Authorised by Gerry Georgatos, Independent Candidate for Willagee, 9 Arion Avenue, Harrisdale, 6112)”
Gerry, your past few posts have excluded this necessary information.
Will Peter Tinley be the richest man in State Parliament after November 28?
Hello Kargotichroad,
You are correct. Oversight due in terms to how fast I have been typing however having noted it at least once on this site in introducing myself hence I am recognised in terms of this authorisation, as I am indisputably identifiable. However, I will ensure I do not slip up again.
Kargotichroad, a person’s wealth, in line with my beliefs, is the example they live, the wealth of good they achieve on behalf of others, the love they give and receive, the stands they are prepared to make, the heart on their sleeve courage they are prepared to demonstrate. Certainly, in terms of financial accumulations I would be among the ‘poorest’ in Parliament if I were to achieve membership of Parliament. I have never found the desire to pursue such accumulations.
I am sure that most Parliamentarians have accumulated great financial troves. I am not here to judge Peter on what I do not know, only on what I do know.
The willing away of power, as absolute power does corrupt and this is why it must be willed away, is paramount. The redistribution of wealth to ensure an equitable society and real opportunities for all, and the disinvestment from greed, is a grounding I have never moved away from and have argued passionately all my life, not just during my working life.
Kindly, Gerry
(Written and Authorised by Gerry Georgatos, Independent Candidate for Willagee, 9 Arion Avenue, Harrisdale, 6112)
Actually the question wasn’t asked of you, it was for other thread followers, but thanks for answering anyway.
You do go on a bit.
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 » Show All