Teal it like it is: truth is, they are fraudulent hypocrites

The so-called Climate 200 ‘independents’ are policy cowards who don’t deserve our vote.

Liberal MP Dave Sharma and Independent candidate for Wentworth Allegra Spender. Picture: Richard Dobson

The fake independents, so-called “Voices of” independents or “teal” independents, is the most fraudulent political movement foisted upon the electorate in living memory. Their prime political purpose – removing the federal Coalition’s parliamentary majority and creating a Labor/Greens/independents minority govern­ment – is the goal that dare not speak its name.

Everything about their political strategy and rhetoric betrays this objective. Yet for reasons of cynical political advantage, they refuse to be upfront with voters.

Apart from absurd fantasies about somehow improving the global climate from Canberra, the main proposal from these so-called independents is a commitment to integrity in politics. They are literally spruiking for votes by promising greater transparency and accountability in politics while refusing to say which major party they would support to form government.

The most important outcome of an election is the one they refuse to address.

They pretend they have no idea, that it is a question impossible to address in the here and now, and they refuse to share with voters their true thoughts or leanings.

They even seek to deny the responsibility that, on current polling, could well rest on their shoulders; the need to guarantee supply and confidence to one side or another to form government. Asked this week by my Sky News colleague Laura Jayes whether she accepted she could be “kingmaker”, Zali Steggall (Warringah, NSW) said: “No, this is the positioning the media likes to make.”

Warringah MP Zali Steggall. Picture: Jane Dempster

Steggall pointed out minority governments are not uncommon and that “the media is attached to the idea of a binary (Liberal or Labor) situation”. But it is the Constitution and our system of government that is committed to a binary arrangement – government or opposition.

Steggall seemed not to comprehend that even minority governments are, in fact, gov­ernments, therefore must have demonstrated to a governor or governor-general that they have sufficient support to make them an effective majority for the crucial functioning of democracy. Perhaps she has spent too much time trying to have her Liberal opponent cancelled, rather than considering her role in a parliamentary democracy.

The other “Voices of” candidates are just as evasive. Former card-carrying ALP member Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Vic) insists, “I’m not negotiable,” and Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Vic) says to declare her intentions ahead of time would be “ridiculous”.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, NSW) was challenged directly on this by her Liberal opponent, Dave Sharma in a televised candidate’s debate this week but offered no transparency about her intentions.

“This is one of the most important questions that any independent will face in their first term of parliament or any time of parliament,” said Sharma, arguing that unless Spender was “upfront now” and told voters which party she was going to support she was being “dishonest with them”.

The hypocrisy and audacity is enough to take your breath away – which is one way to reduce CO2 emissions. If it were not all so serious, it would be a brilliant premise for a satirical series – Integrity as I say, not as I do.

Independent Zoe Daniel will be contesting the seat of Goldstein. Picture : NCA NewsWire / Ian Currie

In Wentworth, Spender’s posters promise a corny double entendre – “A better climate for Wentworth”. But even if this millionaire fashion industry heiress could fix the weather in the wealthiest electorate in the nation, and then turn her attention to avoiding what she claims to be a rapidly approaching global climate catastrophe, how could she improve integrity in politics unless she is open with voters?

The other element to this attempted electoral fraud is the pretence to independence. What they portray as an accidental alliance of like-minded grassroots independents is clearly a centrally controlled organisation, funded in large party by billionaires and millionaires as a top-down movement to unseat enough Liberals to install a Labor/Greens government.

Either that or we are seeing a series of coincidences to turn chaos theory on its head. The so-called “Voices of” independents are all middle-aged, upper middle-class white women (to use the identity labels of the progressives) with green-left backgrounds of varying degrees, from ALP membership to ABC journalism or climate activism.

They are all running against Liberal incumbents in upper middle-class or wealthy seats. All but one use as their calling sign the colour teal – it seems to be the colour you get by mixing Greens with blue bloods.

The Greens leader Adam Bandt says the Greens are not competing against them (except in Kooyong), while the Labor Party is running dead in the seats they are contesting.

The “Voices of” candidates are praised by Labor and its friends in the green-left media.

They all accept funding from Climate 200, the campaign organisation established by Simon Holmes a Court, who inherited his fortune from his father Robert, Australia’s first billionaire, who made much of his money from oil and gas. They all cite radical climate action as their prime issue, followed by the push for a federal integrity commission, then a raft of other woke or ­virtue-signalling issues such as backing claims of transphobia over the rights of girls and women in sport.

Many of them use Climate 200’s Damien Hodgkinson as their financial controller – the same money man who disguised a $100,000 donation from the Kinghorne family fortune (partly generated by coal interests) to Steggall’s Warringah campaign by dividing it into 10 smaller donations below disclosure limits. Despite this, Holmes a Court says he has “no problems” with Hodgkinson and that “he’s an excellent controller”.

Damien Hodgkinson is running campaigns for eight independents at the election, including Julia Banks and Zali Steggall.

Climate 200, by the way, lists all these candidates on its website, providing a tool for voters to find their local “independent” and linking through to their websites. This week, Climate 200 started running a video commercial promoting May 21 as “Independents Day”.

It is not very original, and the commercial is puerile. But it is a national advertising campaign for a clutch of joint-funded politicians and candidates running the same policies and supporting each other – yet they are not a party but, rather, “independents”.

“Climate 200 is not a party in any way,” Holmes a Court told the National Press Club in February. “We don’t start campaigns. We don’t choose candidates. We don’t dictate policies. We don’t speak for any independent candidate. They speak for themselves. We simply give them a leg up with funding and support.”

Holmes a Court declared: “These candidates are not working in cahoots, these candidates speak for themselves.” Lost on him, apparently, was the irony that he was presuming to speak on their behalf before a national audience about their propensity to speak for themselves.

The so-called independents and their sponsor pretend that they have all arisen from some organic process in random electorates around the country to ­arrive at the same place.

“I think what you may see,” Daniel told her former ABC colleagues last week, “if this movement – if I could call it that – is successful, is more independents popping up in all sorts of seats across the country – but the obvious reason it’s happening in Coalition seats is we have a Coalition government.”

Well, you could call it a movement, Zoe, or perhaps a party. But they choose to call themselves ­independents.

It reminds me of that joke about the Friesians chewing on their cuds in the paddock. “This mad cow disease is a bit of a worry,” one of them says. “Doesn’t worry me,” says the other, “I’m a penguin.”

Yep, they are not a party, they are all independents, and they might one day run in Labor seats too. The Coalition would kill for the agreed strategy, and the policy and messaging consistency, of these “Voices of” independents.

When Daniel was on ABC radio, Kylea Tink (North Sydney, NSW) was on the line too. “Hi Kylea,” Daniel said, “I haven’t spoken to Kylea for at least two months, which probably says a lot about whether we are a political party or not.”

Really? She has links and familiarity with an “independent” in an unrelated electorate 900km away, in another city, in another state, and that proves there is no party?

Strangely enough the Liberal incumbents these so-called independents are trying to unseat are all moderates who have helped drag the party (wrongly in my view) to more progressive positions on climate change and other issues. Instead of winning them immunity, this has made them vulnerable to the political movement now attempting to capitalise on their capitulations.

The incumbents also represent a more diverse range of backgrounds than the so-called independent challengers – Indian-Australian, gay, female, and Jewish. So the opportunism of the exercise is exposed, the phoney independents are trying to take out the elements of the Liberal Party they most strongly identify with – solely because it looks more achievable than tackling the conservative MPs whom they despise. I call that ruthless. Tealiness, perhaps.

Mind you, I reckon the moderate Liberals have helped to bring this upon themselves. The so-called independents would not stand a chance if there was a real debate about energy security and affordability, and climate realism. But the Coalition’s drift to net-zero acquiescence has taken away almost all policy differentiation – ceding your opponent’s erroneous arguments is not wise.

Still, honesty matters, and if you are green-left, good luck to you. You can vote for the Greens or Labor who are upfront about why the want your support; or you can vote for the “Voices of” who do not think you deserve to be trusted with that information.