Despite predictions of a minority government, independents didn’t win any extra seats in the 48th Parliament. What went wrong?
To help answer this question, Michael Hast shared his analysis on what he thought went wrong in the electorate of Flinders. His analysis drew on my evidence-based research report of extensive de-identified primary data. The source of this data was numerous members of the Progressives of the Peninsula and Independent 4 Flinders (I4F) who were critical of the campaign run by independent candidate Ben Smith.
Qualitative research is neither “right” nor “wrong”. It simply documents people’s views. Many people expressed the view that Smith’s campaign was inconsistent with the values of the community independent movement. Their views are valid even if Smith supporters disagree with them. A limitation of this research report, however, is that people who were dissatisfied with Smith’s campaign were more likely to contact me than those who were satisfied. Despite the potential for bias in this report, the critical feedback is constructive.
If the Community independent movement is to thrive, and I hope it does, people need to be able to offer critical feedback without fear of retribution or the loss of friendships.
The core values of the community independent movement are transparency, integrity, being our best self and doing politics differently. Hast asserted Climate 200 had replaced these core values in Flinders with money, marketing and misinformation.
Hast stated that he hoped his article would begin a constructive conversation. Instead, efforts were made to discredit him and have the article removed from the Michael West Media website.
Being open to all feedback is surely the minimum standard we should expect of anyone who aspires to be a community leader. Yet Smith claimed the article was “full of lies” (i.e. fake news) and then created a conspiracy theory about the timing of the article.
Let’s take a look at the evidence for Hast’s analysis.
When Michael West Media asked Climate 200 how much it had spent on the Flinders campaign, the response was: “Wait for the AEC disclosure.” Six months on from the campaign, the Australian Electoral Commission has now confirmed that Smith’s campaigned received $1,786,645 in donations. Climate 200 contributed $1,024,700 (i.e 57.3 per cent of donations). Why did Climate 200 donate more to Flinders than to other electorates in Victoria?
The only candidate in Australia to receive a larger donation from Climate 200 than Smith was Carolyn Heise in Cowper. Climate 200 contributed $1,127,997 (i.e 52.7 percent of donations).
Many people in Flinders were appalled by the large amount of money spent on Smith’s campaign, saying that it reminded them of an “American election campaign”. They said their vote was “not for sale”.
There is no doubt that a large machine had been created around the community independents movement. This machine includes Climate 200, The Huddle Communities Ltd and Watershed. Although community independents need money to campaign, many said this should not be at the expense of what the movement is all about – local people “turning up, speaking up and stepping up”. According to some in Flinders, money was prioritised over community building.
Some locals suggested that Hast’s article did not go far enough: “[It failed to include] the other elements of the circus – the flash mobs, the dancers on the flatbed truck, the social media monitors that stymied debate, the meeting with the One Nation candidate at the church, the illegal signage, the polling places completely enveloped with branding, etc.”
Hast wrote that “there was a perception [in Flinders] that Climate 200 was pulling strings well before the election campaign even began”. This claim is based on the fact that the chair of Independent 4 Flinders sent emails to potential candidates describing Climate 200 as their “mentors”. Climate 200 denies that staff “mentor” community groups.
On 22 August 2024, the I4F Chair told a possible applicant that Climate 200 had recommended delaying the candidate selection process. In this email, the Chair referred to Climate 200 as “our mentors”. In another email on 27 September 2024, the I4F Chair told another possible applicant that the community group was being “mentored” by Climate 200.
With two emails describing Climate 200 as “mentors”, it is reasonable to conclude that the Chair of I4F organising team felt that Climate 200 was mentoring them. In addition, The Huddle Communities Ltd provided explicit mentoring to I4F.
In a text message on 24 September 2024, Climate 200’s Simon Holmes à Court indicated that he recognised the problem of I4F being associated as Climate 200’s group. It was, therefore, surprising that Seán Marsh, a Climate 200 employee, designed teal-coloured flyers and T-shirts.
Several I4F members described this branding as a “mistake”. One said: “I would prefer I4F remained a genuine grassroots movement, not align ourselves with Climate 200.”
Hast also referred to the selection process changing “without any explanation to members”. I4F members had agreed upon a rigorous selection process with experienced local people to be on the selection panel. Yet, for some unexplained reason, these experienced people were replaced with three members of the organising team.
The fourth member of the selection panel had invited Smith to her home to encourage him to apply. It is not clear how this conflict of interest was managed.
Four people from outside the Flinders electorate were employed to run Smith’s campaign. In addition, Seán Marsh, a creative strategist for Climate 200, worked on Smith’s campaign team, though he claimed he was a “volunteer” .
Locals expressed concern about “outsiders running a grassroots campaign”. They said the campaign was “top down”: “Running a top-down campaign is not in the spirit of a community independent movement”. In addition, some community members highlighted the importance of the campaign team having local knowledge: “The demography, social and economic profile of Flinders is not the same as Kooyong”.
In his response to Hast’s article (published on Michael West Media website), Smith claimed that Kitchen Table Conversations (KTCs) “informed the focus” of his campaign. However, I4F did not undertake any KTCs.
Hast suggested “the biggest misstep by the Smith campaign brain trust was hiding his strong connection to a breakaway branch of the Mormon church.” Smith’s website made no reference to Community of Christ or Smith being an ordained minister. It simply stated that “Smith is not a Mormon”.
Smith’s campaign manager said that Smith did not refer to his religion and ministry “because it didn’t seem that relevant to his candidacy”. Many people disagreed.
Smith’s website also included misinformation about the Community of Christ church. It claimed “Ben has no connection to the Mormon Church“. This misinformation was also spread by members of I4F organising team. For example, members of I4F organising team said Smith was “not a member of the Latter Day Saint church”. In fact, the Community of Christ is the second-largest Latter Day Saint Church in the world.
Members of the I4F organising team also stated that Smith was “no longer an ordained minister”. However, Smith acknowledged in a text on 11 December 2024 that he was currently an ordained minister in the Community of Christ. So why did supporters misinform voters by saying that Smith’s connection to the Community of Christ Church was “in the past”?
A few weeks before pre-poll, the Community of Christ website deleted all of Smith’s posts. In his reply on Michael West Media’s website, Smith writes that he had “zero control over what Community of Christ does with its website.” Is he suggesting that the vanishing posts a few weeks before pre-poll were a coincidence?
The misinformation regarding Smith’s association with the Community of Christ and the changes to the church’s website worried community members, leading them to ask: “What else is Ben Smith hiding”?
There is evidence that Smith told at least one supporter that he was confident he would “win on first preferences” . This supporter describes such confidence as “delusional”. It was also claimed on WhatsApp that Smith needed “791 votes to win“. The end result, after full distribution of preferences, showed that Smith needed 5,258 votes to win.
Smith’s misplaced confidence was possibly due to Climate 200’s polling, undertaken by UComms – a company that had been accused of push-polling. One community leader who was polled three times said the poll included “highly suggestive” questions about Smith. Moreover, he asserted that the only candidate’s name mentioned during the poll was “Ben Smith”.
Although Smith and his supporters reacted combatively to Hast’s article, others in the community independent movement welcomed it. They said the concerns about how Climate 200 operated were not unique to Flinders.
It is unfortunate that Smith and Climate 200 tried to silence Hast’s critical feedback. Rather than slam the door against people with whom we disagree and ascribe pejorative labels, we need engagement.