This long article shares my exchanges with a suspicious Facebook account : Hannah Williams. Hannah’s Facebook handle is @mo.money.589914.
It was not until someone suggested on 17 December that this stranger was commenting on my post for “nefarious reasons”, that I began to ask questions: Was this an unethical game with someone involved in the community independent movement? Or was this a legitimate exchange from someone late to the party who was merely seeking some background?
If it is the latter, it was certainly a weird exchange in which to end a deeply upsetting year for me. It was the year Simon Holmes à Court and Byron Faye at Climate 200 and Ben Smith, the community endorsed candidate for Flinders and members of I4F organising team (that I had initially formed) refused to meet to discuss constructive critical feedback about Smith’s campaign. They were invited to a meeting two months before Hast published his article. Rather than meet, I received the fire-hose.
If it is the former, these childish and unethical games provide further evidence that the community independent movement has lost its way. Or as someone recently described the community movement on Mornington Peninsula: “Gone to hell in a handbasket”*.
*Until recently, this woman lived somewhere in the Indi electorate. She moved to Mt Eliza in 2023. I forwarded her email to Gerard Heijden (organising team, I4F) and then deleted it.
Here are some warnings I received. They are all speculative.
“If it’s not *** it’s a member of his inner circle and he probably knows about it. Interesting they’re still whining all these months later.”
“I read all of “her” comments as male for some reason”.
“I looked at her profile, no friends, no photos yadda yadda .. def someone created to do phishing with you.”
“I reckon it’s a bot that someone has set up. The question is: who?”
My colleague and mentor had wise words:
“Tread carefully, just in case.”
The fact that several people, including myself, have doubts about the identity of the owner of the FB account shows the damage that the recent federal campaign in Flinders has done to trust, transparency and integrity in the community independent movement on the Mornington Peninsula.
I have considered the ethics of sharing my private conversations with ‘Hannah’. In my view, someone who creates a suspicious Facebook account for the sole purpose of communicating with me forgoes the right for our personal messages to be kept confidential. Transparency is a fundamental value of mine. I also note, in the event that Simon Holmes à Court reads this article, writing “In Confidence” at the beginning of an email has no legal basis. One party can’t unilaterally impose confidentiality; there must be a shared understanding that the receiver accepts, even if implied by circumstances.
As a friend with whom I started I4F said to me today: “I’m obviously a slow learner but, like [Name] after the 2022 election, I have come to the realisation that politics, and those who relish playing that game, are not for me.”
Strap yourself in, this is quite a story.
After reading the 2025 Federal Election Study, I was reminded of the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. I have published extensively on this issue including ‘One in five Australians‘ on Radio National’s Perspective and “Our lives are too messy to reduce to a statistic” and “Unreliable statistics leave many out in the cold“, both published in The Age. My intention is to write a commentary piece about the election study (however my recent priority was opinion pieces about the NACC Commissioner and why he should resign.
On December 12, 2025, I posted:
In March 2021, the community independent movement on the Mornington Peninsula began. I hosted a motley crew on my deck to discuss forming a not-for-profit organisation: Voices of the Mornington Peninsula (VMP).
As a qualitative researcher, I have documented all the ups and downs over the past 4 years. A highlight was endorsing Claire Boardman; a low light was her withdrawal. Fortunately the disparate groups came together to form Independent 4 Flinders in 2024. And then, of course, there was Ben Smith’s campaign.
My personal highlight was facilitating 20+ Kitchen Table Conversations in 2021-2022. Unlike quantitative researchers who ask people to rate specific issues on a scale of 1-10 (e.g 2025 Australian Federal Election Study), qualitative researchers ask people what issues matter to them. As you can see below, these methodologies provide different insights into issues that most concern local voters.
‘Hannah Williams’, using the handle @mo.money.589914, responded to this post. Over 1,200 people have engaged with this post, a tenfold increase.
“Why did Claire withdraw? Sounds like a shame if the ‘formula’ of kitchen table conversations is what produced her as a candidate. Would also be really interested to know about the demographics of the kitchen table conversations you conducted, and how qualitative researchers are working to include those who are usually un-represented at these conversations (whereas they’re ‘easier’ to access for quantitative reports such as the Federal Election Study – which consequently seem more representative of the overall voting population)”
I replied:
You misunderstand the purpose of KTCs. They are not a “formula” to find a candidate. They are a process of community engagement, building and empowerment. Both Dr Yoland Wadsworth and Mary Crooks have written about this methodology. Or you could read Alana Johnson’s chapters ‘Conversations can change the world’ and ‘The people who aren’t interested in politics’ in ‘Voices for Indi: They Indi Way’.
For KTCs to be useful, they need to be current (‘issues that matter’ change, as demonstrated by the Federal Election Study). They also need to be inclusive – participants need to be representative of the electorate. In 2003, I published an article in Australian Qualitative Research Journal about how to engage people in research who are usually unrepresented. I am happy to share this article with you though I only have a hard copy. I also published an article in The Age that was critical of qualitative researchers who use ‘convenience samples’. I am a strong believer that qualitative research must be representative.
Hannah:
Thanks for this. Can you share about the demographics of the 20 KTCs you conducted?
Sarah:
Amongst all your questions, I missed this one – Would you like to see the KTC report that I wrote in 2022? It explains the demographics. It was my understanding that this report (like in other Voices groups that were using Indi as the ‘role model’) would be shared with members. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Sarah:
Your other question: “Why did Claire withdraw?” motivates me to write a history of the community independent movement on the Mornington Peninsula. It would be a page-turner!
I will keep this as brief as possible – but it is quite a yarn.
Soon after the inaugural Community Independents Convention “Getting Elected” in 2021, Michael Stephens organised a group of people to meet on my deck to discuss forming a not-for-profit organisation: Voices of the Mornington Peninsula (VMP). Although I was never a member of the VMP board, I was aware of how incredibly hard board members worked to get VMP off the ground: KTCs were the initial priority and then finding a candidate.
VMP established a rigorous community process for selecting a candidate. I had met Despi during one of my KTCs and was very impressed with her (I had recently moved to Mt Martha so did not know she was the Mayor). I suggested she applied. She did, along with 2 others.
In December, Claire Boardman won VMPs endorsement (the vote was close – Claire 11 votes; Despi 7 votes).
Almost immediately after* VMP members were told that Claire was our candidate, Despi (supported by Climate 200) announced in The Age that she was running as an independent candidate for Flinders.
*This is incorrect. On 7 December (4 days before VMP members were told that we had endorsed Claire) Despi announced that she was running as an independent candidate for Flinders. This shocked many of us [because it was our understanding that Climate 200 supported the community endorsed candidate. Claire was the community endorsed candidate, not Despi.]
Many VMP members supported Despi (she was a strong candidate and a popular Mayor). 3 months later, in February 2022, Claire decided to withdraw due to the split vote and no funding from Climate 200. This left VMP board in a difficult position: Should they encourage members to get behind Despi or should they run another Voices endorsed candidate? They decided to ask members. At a meeting in Dromana, members voted to run a candidate (the vote was close).
At the last minute, two of us offered to be the candidate. Members voted for me. I knew I had no chance of winning (I only campaigned for 2 months). My only aim as the VMP endorsed candidate was to keep Voices alive on the Mornington Peninsula.
I was genuinely surprised to get more than 4% of the vote. As it turned out, I got 5.25% (Despi got 7.2%). I was able to use the money from AEC to start the Progressives of the Peninsula – and work to bring the fractured Flinders community (Despi supporters; Sarah supporters) back together.
Last thing: After having 2 independent candidates in 2022, I suggested applicants for 2025 signed a simple agreement stating: “I agree that if not selected, I will not initiate a separate campaign as an independent candidate for the same election in Flinders electorate”. We did not need another clusterfuck!!
Hannah:
Thank you for this explanation. So what I can gather from this is that Claire Boardman withdrew because she would not receive Climate 200 funding? And because Despi had decided to run anyway? I’m curious about the lack of Climate 200 funding being a driver for her withdrawl, given how strongly you’ve spoken out against Climate 200 funding candidates. I’m also curious as to why you ended up running when you were also wanting to bring the fractured VMP community back together, rather than getting behind Despi and not splitting the Independent vote? I see your intention in asking 2025 applicants to agree not to run if not selected, but not sure how this stacks up legally. How did you go with Progressives of the Peninsula and bringing the ‘Despi’ and ‘Sarah’ supporters back together?
Sarah:
No Hannah. Claire withdrew primarily because of the split vote. Having 2 “community independents” made it impossible for either Despi or Claire to win. You also misrepresent my position on Climate 200. Several members of my family donate to Climate 200 because we believe their [Climate 200] money is important in levelling the playing field. Climate 200 money was instrumental in electing Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, Monique Ryan in Kooyong, Kate Chaney in Curtin, Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Sophie Scamps in Mackellar, Kylea Tink in North Sydney and David Pocock in the Senate. These MPs/Senators have been fabulous. However, as someone who has been involved the community independent movement for over 10 years told me (and it is documented in my evidence-based qualitative report that you are welcome to read): “There’s no doubt a large machine has been created around the community independents movement – where money has been prioritised over community. We need money to campaign, but not at the expense of what the movement is all about.”
It is a shame that you were not involved in the community independent movement in 2021-2022. After Claire withdrew, I suggested the board consider asking members of VMP their views about having a candidate or not. The board held 3 well attended meetings in Balnarring, Dromana and Rye where members discussed their views: Some said VMP should not have a candidate but instead continue to engage the community in KTCs. Others said VMP should have a candidate. At the Balnarring and Dromana meetings, I spoke in favour of having a candidate because I believed that was the best way to engage everyone on the peninsula in democracy. Without a candidate, I thought we would be able to engage only those who are already politically engaged (like those of us who attended these meetings). But the challenge was to also engage those who are currently disengaged. I thought we need a candidate to do this. As I said yesterday, the vote was close (in fact there was some [shameful] politicking prior to the vote to encourage members to vote against having a candidate – which was in contrast to Voices principles of ‘doing politics differently’). Once the vote was “To have a candidate” I thought I should ‘put my money where my mouth’ was and nominate. Here is the last paragraph of my ‘candidate speech’ –
“If we decide today not to have a candidate, I will be VMP’s community engagement co-ordinator with bells on. I will do my best to engage as many people as possible in our organisation. If you decide to have me as your candidate I will give the election a red hot go starting tomorrow with a strategy meeting on my deck, the same place where I first became involved in VMP.” And I did give it a red hot go – Many people told me my website with detailed polices was the reason they voted for me. I did not just have motherhood statements nor did I jump on the bandwagon of local issues and claim them as my own.
Regarding your point about the statement “I agree that if not selected, I will not initiate a separate campaign as an independent candidate for the same election in Flinders electorate”. This turned into a ridiculous document that the 2 candidates signed. I have included a copy in my report. Ben Smith referred to this document as a NDA. It is no such thing and has no legal basis.
And your final point about “bringing the community together after the 2022 clusterfuck”. Progressives of the Peninsula has around 600 members – so I’d say I did OK at healing the wounds. Simon Holmes à Court texted* me to say that we could not launch our new candidate under the auspices of Progressives. So I then spent months building Independent 4 Flinders. Simon then texted me that I am “too left” to remain on the organising team, so I left (pun intended). Evidence of these texts are in the appendices of my report – that you are welcome to read. The interesting thing – from my perspective – is it was members of the Progressives and I4F who contacted me wth criticisms of Smith’s campaign. I was overwhelmed with these messages. So I decided to put these messages (de-identified, of course) in a report. The title of my report is: “Community Independent Movement in Flinders: lessons from the 2025 federal election”. After I completed the report, a local editor and former journalist (who I had met in the dog park) offered to proof read it pro bono. 6 weeks later he told me he wanted to write a commentary piece about Smith’s election campaign – I introduced him to MWM and the rest is history. The response to my report has been very positive from many people in the community independent movement. There have however been some notable exceptions who reacted with defamatory comments in a WhatsApp group. Some people clearly don’t understand the importance of constructive critical feedback – it was ever thus!
*Simon Holmes à Court told me at the Sorrento Writers Festival, not in a text, that we could not launch a candidate via Progressives of the Peninsula. As I state in the report, this was never our intention. Progressives of the Peninsula includes people who support Labor, Greens, Animal Justice Party and Community independents.
I was becoming tired of typing. So I sent this ‘Hannah” the following personal message:
Hi Hannah – You have asked some very good questions on my FB Page. Would you like to meet sometime? I always think face-to-face is better than trying to engage via social media.
Although Hannah saw the question, she continued to engage on the public page.
Hannah:
i didn’t realise you were involved with Ben Smiths campaign and wrote a report on it, is your report available to access somewhere?
Sarah:
I was NOT involved in Smith’s campaign. I spend quite a lot of time responding to your questions so it is disappointing that you don’t read them carefully.
Yes the report is available – and many people in the community independent movement have read it. Please respond to my Personal Message (that I see you have read) and I will let you know how you can access it. I am turning my phone off now so I can work.
Hannah:
Thanks – just clarifying given you’ve written a report on it so that gave me the impression you were somehow involved. My apologies! Have a good day.
Sarah:
Cut and pasting from my blog
This report provides important lessons for future community independent campaigns. It collates messages sent to me before, during and after the 2025 federal election. I received around 400 messages, all unsolicited. These messages included emails, texts and screenshots from social media/WhatsApp. These messages have been de-identified and analysed thematically.
The feedback was mostly from members of the Progressives of the Peninsula. I also had conversations with several community leaders who attended the inaugural Independent 4 Flinders meetings that I convened in May 2024. They expressed their concern that Smith’s campaign was inconsistent with the values of the community independent movement.
I undertook this qualitative research project after the 2025 federal election because I want community independent movements around Australia to consider the feedback from those who believed mistakes were made in Flinders.
A limitation of this document is that people who were dissatisfied with Smith’s campaign were more likely to contact me than those who were satisfied. Despite the bias in this report, this critical feedback is constructive and important for the future of the community independent movement.
(difficult to turn my phone off when I need to use it to work. I need a teenager to teach me how to stop it beeping when I receive a notification about a comment on my FB page!)
I feel compelled to make one last point (also cut and pasting from my blog). This is something that Simon Holmes à Court does not understand.
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.
On December 13 I shared Nick Feik’s article with the following comment:
I’ve been reflecting on the similarities between an investigative “journalist” and a qualitative researcher. Nick Feik’s fabulous article helped me understand the venn diagram better.
Like qualitative research, “journalism’s objective isn’t to bring change. It’s to observe, record, explain.” Having said that, both qualitative research and journalism “still rests on a fundamental optimism, a belief that facts and truth will eventually be the basis of positive action; if people understand a problem, they will act. I don’t even know if this is true, but I prefer it over moral nihilism. Perhaps you don’t even need to be so idealistic. Understanding a problem is surely a necessary precondition to fixing it, so we should at least start with that.”
On December 15, I posted one of the comments I had made in a long thread – because many people, including I4F organising team, are not aware of VMP’s history and why I stepped up to replace Claire Boardman.
Recently, Hannah Williams asked: Why did Claire Boardman withdraw as the Voices endorsed independent candidate for Flinders in the 2019 federal election?
Her question motivates me to one day write a history of the community independent movement on the Mornington Peninsula. It would be a page-turner!
I thought it best to share my answer in a post. I have tried to keep it as brief as possible – but it is quite a yarn.
Soon after the inaugural Community Independents Convention “Getting Elected” in 2021, Michael Stephens organised a group of people to meet on my deck to discuss forming a not-for-profit organisation: Voices of the Mornington Peninsula (VMP). Although I was never a member of the VMP board, I was aware of how incredibly hard board members worked to get VMP off the ground: KTCs and forums were the initial priority, and then finding a candidate.
VMP established a rigorous community process for selecting a candidate. I had met Despi during one of my KTCs and was very impressed with her (I had recently moved permanently to Mt Martha so did not know she was the Mayor). I suggested she applied. She did, along with 2 others.
In December, Claire Boardman won VMPs endorsement (the vote was close).
Almost immediately after VMP members were told that Claire was our candidate, Despi (supported by Climate 200) announced in The Age that she was running as an independent candidate for Flinders. This shocked many of us because it was our understanding that Climate 200 supported community endorsed candidates.
Despi’s decision to run solo divided the community.
Several VMP members supported Despi (she was a strong candidate and a popular Mayor). 3 months later, in February 2022, Claire decided to withdraw due to the split vote and no funding from Climate 200. This left VMP board in a difficult position: Should they encourage members to get behind Despi or should they run another Voices endorsed candidate? They decided to ask members. At a meeting in Dromana, members voted to run a candidate (the vote was close).
At the last minute, two of us offered to be the candidate. Members voted for me. I knew I had no chance of winning (I had a very short campaign and only received donations from local people who shared my values). My only aim as the VMP endorsed candidate was to keep Voices alive on the Mornington Peninsula.
I was genuinely surprised to get more than 4% of the vote. As it turned out, I got 5.25%; Despi got 7.2%. The total was around the same as Julia Banks (13.8%), demonstrating that a community independent has a genuine chance in Flinders in the near future.
I was able to use the money from AEC to start the Progressives of the Peninsula – and work to bring the fractured Flinders community (Despi supporters; Sarah supporters) back together.
After having 2 independent candidates in 2022, I suggested I4F applicants for 2025 signed a simple agreement stating: “I agree that if not selected, I will not initiate a separate campaign as an independent candidate for the same election in Flinders electorate”. We did not need another clusterfuck!!
Hannah replied:
I’ve responded to your reply on the original post, but I’m curious about the part you added here “My only aim as the VMP endorsed candidate was to keep Voices alive on the Mornington Peninsula.” I find this interesting, that your intention in running was to keep your group alive, rather than the collective goal of electing an Independent representative for Flinders? It feels a bit like party-in-fighting and grandstanding so I’m interested as to how you thought running yourself would support the movement’s goals overall?
Sarah:
I have just spent an hour responding to your questions on another post. I need to get to work – so I will respond to these additional questions tomorrow. But just to clarify – I cut and pasted my comment into this post (I may have done some editing afterwards, I don’t recall). The sentence “My only aim as the VMP endorsed candidate was to keep Voices alive on the Mornington Peninsula.” was also in the comment. It was certainly not grandstanding – I was responding to the wishes of the members. This new movement on the Mornington Peninsula was a grassroots movement that listened to its members. Incidentally, in a meeting on 23 June 2024, the members of I4F unanimously said they wanted a female candidate. Their views were ignored.
Although all your questions are important, and I welcome the discussion, this deluge of questions (that began AFTER the recent tragedy) seem to me to be self indulgent given the current tragedy. I suggest we continue the discussion after the holidays.
2 people commented on the post
1. As I understood it, Claire thought that there was money available for the campaign, that VMP was to fund her. She neither had her own funds, nor time to raise it.
Despi went on to split the independent vote, lacking integrity in an opportunistic run despite failing VMP preselection.
2. and as councillor for Briars Ward she stood down for 8 months while running for election. I think that as an elected councillor you’re in for the full term unless it’s health issues.
Hannah replied to the first comment:
Where did Claire think the money was coming from, and why wasn’t that made clear before she was selected? I thought a community independent was supposed to raise their own funds? From this outside vantage point, it seems like there was a breakdown in communication during the process? If there was a bit of that going on, it seems reasonable that Despi would run her own race after what seems to have potentially been a poorly run process? I often see multiple ‘independents’ on the ballot paper so surely there’s nothing stopping that?
In the morning on 16 December, I sent Hannah another personal message:
Hi again Hannah. The suspicion around your FB account – and the fact that many people have told me you are “*** *****” speaks to our community’s lack of trust after Smith’s campaign. I was not involved in the campaign for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a good friend is dying in Northcote – and I wanted to spend as much time as possible with her. However I was inundated with messages about the campaign – so I think it’s fair to say the community is again fractured. Recently Simon Holmes a Court emailed me suggesting the flinders community needs to come together, and respected people need to make a concerted effort to squash misinformation. I simply don’t have the energy to do it again.
Hannah did not read this message so later in the day, I posted a screenshot of Hannah’s suspicious account with the following comment
I have woken up this morning to several PMs telling me this is a suspicious account. Many people have speculated about who owns this account. They have based their speculation on the fact that the account was opened on 16 October, the day I posted some criticism of a disingenuous press release sent to MP News.
If they are correct about who owns this account, this is further evidence about this person’s integrity and political judgement.
I do not do “speculation” so yesterday I messaged “Hannah” asking to meet. I believe face-to-face meetings are not only more time efficient (I spent an hour this morning answering more questions) but are much more effective than typing.
In my view, people involved in the community independent movement in Flinders need to understand its history. If you fail to learn history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Hannah:
Hi Sarah and those concerned, no suspicion, speculation or conspiracy to be had. I’m a keen observer of how this has all developed over the last few elections having seen the changes in flinders from Greg Hunt through to now, and am interested in the back story. I don’t tend to engage on Facebook (for reasons that you’ve noted) but I did choose to query your article in October to better understand the history and your stance particularly when it comes to funding and decision making, as it was contrary to what I’d seen elsewhere. It’s a shame to hear how fractured the group became. Thanks for answering my questions.
Sarah:
I’d be delighted to meet you sometime. Your questions are insightful and I have done my best to answer them – I’m working to a Christmas deadline – so my answers are rather rushed. I have a 110-page report that covers many of the issues that you have raised – it includes the history of VMP, I4F and Smith’s campaign and its aftermath. As a qualitative researcher (30 years experience), the report is comprehensive (in fact, I have cut and pasted from it to answer some of your questions).
I notice you are no longer reading your PMs – so I thought I’d cut and paste my message from this morning here:
“Hi again Hannah. The suspicion around your FB account – and the fact that many people have told me you are “******” speaks to our community’s lack of trust after Smith’s campaign. I was not involved in the campaign for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a good friend from my home town of Northcote is dying – and I wanted to spend as much time as possible with her, her partner and their 11 year old daughter.
However I was inundated with messages about the campaign – from members of Progressives of the Peninsula and Independent 4 Flinders. So I think it’s fair to say the community is again fractured.
Recently Simon Holmes a Court emailed me suggesting the flinders community needs to come together, and respected people need to make a concerted effort to squash misinformation. I replied to Simon that I simply don’t have the energy to do it again.
Hannah:
I haven’t tended to my DMs today, I’ll get to them later. Thanks for your reply.
For everyone following along, apparently we have quite the audience! – sorry to disappoint you, evidently you think I’m someone other than who I am, I’m sure that person is quite capable of asking these questions themselves (I’d be surprised if they don’t already know all this?) Anyway, Sarah has been great at satisfying my curiosity so, that’s all from me. As you were!
Sarah (18 December):
Goodness me. I have woken up to a message about your statement “as you were”.
A stranger (perhaps she also has a fake account), has written:
“A man is more likely to say “as you were” due to the phrase’s strong association with historically male-dominated environments, such as the armed forces and the church. So I reckon it is likely to be ***. But I thought *** was smarter than this. So perhaps it’s that guy who wiped the CoC website? Or maybe someone from C200. Hell I don’t know – but this person has most definitely come into your FB group for nefarious reasons”.
Please don’t reply. I’ve had my fill of this puerile nonsense. First I had Simon’s bullying “in confidence” email (that I took time to respond to carefully) and now questions from a fake account. It’s really too much.
I will end with a text I received from a local friend. She is the only person with whom I shared Simon’s email (because I was worried about the impact all this nonsense was having on my mental health):
“The contrast between Simon’s approach and yours is mind boggling!!!
At no time do you revert to personal attacks, but rationally, with back up facts, rebut his bluster!
I dip my lid to your courage, integrity, and commitment to a true community independent movement, but please look after yourself.
Many people care deeply for you.”
On Tuesday 16 December, I began communicating with ‘Hannah’ via Personal Messages. I would not normally share personal messages, but a fake account does not deserve the same consideration as a normal private conversation.
Hi again Hannah. The suspicion around your FB account – and the fact that many people have told me you are “*** *****” speaks to our community’s lack of trust after Smith’s campaign. I was not involved in the campaign for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a good friend is dying in Northcote – and I wanted to spend as much time as possible with her. However I was inundated with messages about the campaign – so I think it’s fair to say the community is again fractured. Recently Simon Holmes a Court emailed me suggesting the flinders community needs to come together, and respected people need to make a concerted effort to squash misinformation. I simply don’t have the energy to do it again.
There was no response. So 3 hours later, I tried again.
You are welcome to read the report. For obvious reasons it is only available in hard copy. So let me know when you’d like to read it. sarahrussell@comcen.com.au
I absolutely am not *** ***** you can reassure yourself and your friends of that – I don’t even know him. It’s odd though that people think that anyone interested in this history must be [Name]? I’m simply an observer of how the community independent model has evolved here having seen it do so well in other places, and was curious about why you were so against Smith’s campaign after such a long time in this arena. I do have acquintences (sic) who volunteered in it so I do know that some of what you previously said in October was untrue, that’s why I’ve been interested in more of the back story to get the full picture. I would have like to have been involved at some point. I wish you the best.
Sarah
FYI – the people contacting me about you are not my friends. My friends moved on from the Smith “shit show” (their words, not mine) months ago. To be perfectly honest with you Hannah – I am sick of the whole Smith imbroglio. I was not keen to engage with you – because everything you asked is answered in my report. However I had just received legal advice – that a friend (who I had worked with on the Indi campaign over a decade ago) had obtained – suggesting I had a strong case of defamation against Ben Smith, Simon Holmes a Court and Luke O’Brien for comments they made after a local journalist wrote an article about Smith’s campaign. I made it crystal clear to her that I just want to move on! And then you appeared. And your questions made me want to go back under the doona (where I have spent a considerable amount of time over past 6 months.) Watching my side of politics behave so badly has been a devastating experience for me. I too wish you all the best. If you ever feel like having a face-to-face chat, I make the best coffee on the Mornington Peninsula. P.S. The analytics show you brought over a thousand people to my page over past 2 days. I hope it goes back to normal now. I really do want a peaceful life!
Hannah
I appreciate this Sarah – and I do apologise for dragging up what you may not have wanted to revisit. I suppose I took your posting and mentioning of the movement and Smith’s campaign as a signal otherwise – I apologise for misinterpreting, and at the beginning I also did not know that you had a report available that detailed this history. Seeing how complicated this has all been over many years now, I can understand how you feel that way. From what I’ve observed over the last few years there are many people who would have a case for defamation – Smith included (including the article that was written about him, from what I know from my contacts) – with the amount of disinformation that’s circulated and caused harm. It must not be a nice place for any of you to be in. I may take you up on a coffee in the new year if the occasion arises. I do wish you all the best, including the peaceful life you crave – hopefully your page settles down now!
Sarah
My problem with the article that Hast wrote was the nasty tone. It was unnecessary. But I have been told that is his style. As far as I am aware, the claims made in the article were based on evidence. After the reaction from Smith and HaC, I wrote the following article on my blog. If there is anything incorrect, it should be changed. This could have been done if Ben, Luke* and Simon HaC had engaged in a conversation. Instead they became abusive. Maybe next year, things will have calmed down – and you could act as a mediator!!
*I should have said “Ben and Simon became abusive”. Luke, a long-term friend who I suggested join I4F organising team after his wife told me he was bored in his retirement, posted an ill-informed and defamatory post in a WhatsApp group. I have never understood why he did not pick up the phone and talk about the Hast article. However, the signs of the crack in our friendship were visible in previous conversations on 11 September (after the I4F forum that I organised) and 28 October. Yes, qualitative researchers keep meticulous documents.
After this PM, I decided to make a public post. This post has also had a large number of views (who are all these people who have suddenly decided to visit my public page?)
The traffic on this page over past few days has escalated due to the cameo appearance of Hannah Williams.
My recent engagement with Hannah brought back memories of another stranger on Facebook who also asked critical and insightful questions. About 3 years ago – when Progressives of the Peninsula FB group existed and this page was much more active – Sean Callander would often pop up with a comment that challenged me. I engaged with Sean rather than blocked (when did blocking people with whom we disagree become ‘a thing’?).
After a couple of Facebook exchanges with Sean, I suggested we met for coffee. I did the same with Hannah. Sean accepted – and we have been meeting regularly ever since. I have called our coffee catch ups ‘Curiosity Conversations’ because we are genuinely interested in each other’s perspective. These conversations are respectful and often challenge me to think differently about an issue. To date, we have not found anything on which we agree.
Last night Hannah and I had a PM exchange in which we discussed defamation – how people sometimes use the legal system when their world views collide. I have been told I should sue for misinformation spread by a ‘friend’ in a WhatsApp group and others have been told they could sue for an article that was published in MWM.
Rather than suing, I suggest engagement. If the article Hannah referred to contains falsehoods, it should be corrected. Although I thought the article had a nasty vibe, I have checked all the claims made. I believe it was based on evidence. However, I welcome being challenged. So if anyone wants to challenge the evidence, my door remains open. As Sean will attest, I make great coffee.
I also shared this post on my personal Facebook page with the following message:
Over the past 48 hours – while our country mourns the tragedy in Bondi – a strange FB account has been asking me loads of questions about the community independent movement in Flinders. I considered the questions self indulgent given the timing.
Strangers PMed me speculating on who ‘owned’ the account. I am not into speculation, so I answered the questions – mostly by cut and pasting from a qualitative report I wrote after the last federal election.
In a PM last night, ‘Hannah’ suggested an article published by Michael West was “defamatory”. I have also been advised that comments made in a WhatsApp group (and in a text to Michael West) are “defamatory”.
Are we living in an era when people prefer legal action to conversation? Why do people make ridiculous comments before ascertaining the facts?
Back to personal messages.
Sarah:
I shared the article publicly because I am so tired of being told my report is “wrong”. My report merely analyses the 400+ messages I received during Smith’s campaign. It is neither “right” nor “wrong”
Hannah gave me a thumbs up for this message.
Sarah:
Final comment (I hope) I am writing a critique of the 2025 Australian Federal Election Study (hence my post on 12 Dec that you initially engaged with). I got side-tracked with a couple of articles about NACC commissioner. If you know Ben, please let him know the emails and screenshots have started again. I received 6 emails recently about the new Indies website. This time, I am putting the emails immediately in the rubbish bin!
Hannah:
Yes, the article certainly had a nasty undertone not typical of what you’d see from journalists – particularly made worse by not having done the journalistic practice of contacting the subject of the article for comment inclusion before publishing. I thought that was quite disingenuous no matter what the facts are.
Those screenshots and sending around is just silly – I’ve seen that website after noticing the news in the paper and that screenshot looks to me like a work in progress website, which one would expect from any local group! That’s just petty, I’d be putting it in the bin too!
I don’t know Ben personally but it looks like he has his hands full with more important matters than petty screenshots (I saw the age article) and honestly I hope it stays that way, we certainly do have a crisis on our hands on the peninsula.
Sarah:
I’d like to stop these PMs now. However I just need to clarify a few things before I sail off into the sunset (actually after our recent exchanges both public and private, I’m having day with a novel in my beach box – yes, I am Dr Privilege)
1. I contacted Hast, the x-MP News journalist, to ask if he had contacted Ben before writing the article. His reply (verbatim): “My story was always intended to be my opinion/analysis. Not a she said/he said piece. If C200 and I4F want to put another point of view, let them contact MWM and request space.”
2. Agree sending me emails with a screenshot of new website is silly. I have explained the use of Lorem ipsum text. However the main complaint concerns the “tough fight”. A poor choice of language for a community independent campaign.
3. I have been helping people to write letters to MP News for over a year about housing problem. I also helped Beck Cridland (serious problems finding affordable rental property on peninsula) write an article in which she suggested some solutions. But as I am sure you know newspaper today is fish n chip wrapper tomorrow.
4. SWAN has been meeting with government. And Beck’s article has been sent to all Victorian MPs.
Finally, some people questioned why Ben was in The Age not Jeremy Maxwell. They described it as his “soft launch” for Mornington [Victorian State Election in November 2026]. This again attests to the division and distrust that his campaign caused in the community. I look forward to meeting you one day. Signing off now.
Hannah:
I thought it was appropriate that it was Ben Smith and not Jeremy Maxwell because he is also a prominent advocate in the space – perhaps the age sought him out directly due to this. I reckon people need to remember who he was before his campaign, this is the work he’s always done, so naturally he is still a prominent advocate in that space. I think all 3 centres do great work and I don’t mind who the mouth piece is, as long as the issue is getting the attention and investment it deserves. From where I sit, people’s speculation says more about themselves than about what might be happening in reality. But that’s just me 
I’ll sign off now too enjoy the summer in your beach box!
I’ll sign off now too enjoy the summer in your beach box![As far as I know from his LinkedIn page, Smith’s previous community work was with the CoC. Happy to be corrected. Also I know Ben Preiss – My speculation is he was sent a media release rather than “sought Ben out directly”.]
Sarah:
The things people say/think/complain about says more about them than the issue. I much prefer to approach issues with curiosity, not judgement. The more you write, the more I’d like to meet you!
Hannah:
Perhaps into the new year! Take care 
After a day filled with errands and catching up with a dear friend at the beach, I returned home to find Hannah Williams had sent Sean Callander a friend request. I then phoned my mentor (also a politically active qualitative researcher) for advice. Her advice was to put all the correspondence in a file. Us qualitative researchers like to document the evidence!
On 18 December 2025, I continued the messages.
Sarah:
I am putting all our correspondence (both public and private) in a file. I just came across this sentence of yours “curious about why you were so against Smith’s campaign after such a long time in this arena.” I kept my mouth quiet between his launch in December and the Declaration. I simply collected other people’s views. However, given I am now upset about who I think you are (no I don’t think you are Ben but I also don’t think you are “Hannah”) – I will tell you why I disengaged completely.
Did you know I went to Ben’s office at MCSC on 5 August 2024 to invite him to consider being the community independent candidate? After that meeting, I went to his LinkedIn page – and found out he was an ordained minister in Community of Christ. I had never heard of the Church – so I googled it.
Coincidentally, in 1979-1980, I lived with a family in Blue Springs Missouri who were members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). I am an atheist, so this was an eye-opening experience for me. I had no problem with Ben being an ordained minister in this church. In fact, I thought it could be a positive – e.g. bring the faith community in Flinders to the movement.
I have very fond memories of Brian Howe as my Federal Member for Batman (my previous electorate). As I state in my report: “Prior to his pre-selection, Howe told members of the Batman branch that he was an ordained minister in the Uniting Church. He explained that if he was pre-selected and won the seat, he would not work for the church during his time as an MP. However, he told members of the branch that his values were informed by the Uniting Church – social justice, compassion, inclusion, kindness, etc. He not only won pre-selection, but also the seat.”
Ben chose not to mention his ministry at his launch. When Sakkal wrote his article, the I4F organising team told members that it was “misinformation”. This was nonsense. CoC is the second largest Latter Day Saint Church in the world. It was NOT misinformation.
I spent a lot of time educating people about the difference between CoC and Mormons. I had a standard email I sent to many people who were “outraged” that I4F had selected a Mormon.
This fire could easily have been put out by being honest. How hard would it have been to say, as he said to me on 11 December (when I asked Ben if he was still an ordained minister in CoC): ““Yes that’s correct Sarah. I’m not a regular attendee these days, mostly because of distance to the closest congregation, but still hold that title.”
Given transparency is a fundamental value of mine, I made the decision to disengage from Smith’s campaign, effective immediately. However, I did not speak badly of Ben during the campaign – it is not my style.
After his hurtful and false comment in WhatsApp about Hast’s article (without first checking the facts by talking with me) and his nasty emails, I am quite happy to say “Flinders dodged a bullet”. 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.
To re-iterate, I simply collated the emails from people who provided critical feedback about integrity (“If he is hiding his faith, what else is he hiding?”) and the campaign (top down, not grassroots) and lack of transparency about $$$ from C200. I could probably type all day about this. But I won’t. I rarely use emojis . But the last few days warrants a few emojis 
Hannah:
Sarah, I am truly sorry to have stirred up these memories and experiences for you. I am Hannah. I have nothing to hide, I’ve explained in my public comments my intentions behind the questions I’ve asked. I can see that my questions have created quite a stir by the sounds of the emails and messages you’ve said you’re receiving and and I do not wish to be a part of this type of ‘gossiping’ for lack of a better word – it was not my intention to create such a rumour mill. So very respectfully I’m going to end our conversations here, I did not expect it to come to this, to have all this speculation occur. It’s not a good look and does not bode well for the movement you’ve been part of, as I see it. Again I thank you for indulging my questions, but ongoing ‘gossiping’ (again, for lack of a better word, and not neccessarily directed toward you) is not something I want to be involved with, so I won’t comment further. Again I truly wish you the best, and hope you have a peaceful and relaxing summer. Hannah.
Sarah:
I too hate gossip. Goodbye Hannah
[If Hannah has “nothing to hide”, why all this cloak and dagger behaviour? Why create a fake FB account? Why not phone me (my phone number is on my website) or text me to arrange a meeting?]
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
After cut and pasting all these posts and comments into this file, I was reminded of the exchange I had with Hannah on the day Ben’s campaign donations were revealed. Just to recap: The Australian Electoral Commission 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). This may explain why Simon Holmes à Court emailed me on 16 October “in confidence”. Was the email meant to intimidate me?
On 15 October, I had a discussion with the publisher of MP News about a media release Ben Smith had submitted having a crack at Zoe McKenzie, Flinders MP. I considered the media release to be disingenuous. I have explained many times to people who joined VMP, my campaign in 2022 and I4F – community independents don’t have a crack at other candidates. One of the tenets of the Community Independent Movement is “To be your best self”*.
*I am aware that Despi thought Gerard Heijden was having a crack at her with his “Footy Rules” and cartoon in 2022, but he told me this was not his intention. Both the footy rules and cartoons were light hearted and based on facts.
In this media release, I was told that Ben complained about the AEC rules that require Independents to disclose their donation on 20 October 2025 while candidates in Labor, Greens, Animal Justice and Liberal parties disclose in February 2026. Although I agree these rules are unfair, it is the rules. To misquote Anika Wells “Zoe McKenzie didn’t make the rules”. I cheekily asked Cam: “Are you are journalist or a stenographer?” Journalists question the facts in media releases. I also said to Cam that a journalist would also have questioned Smith on how he intended to spend the $80K he received from the AEC, as Keith Platt had asked me.
On 27 October, Cam’s byline appeared on an article “Transparency, for some, with election data released”
Prior to the publication of this article, I presented a different view. On 20 October, I posted the following:
I have been asked to correct the misinformation spreading around the Flinders electorate.
Today, donations to community independents were disclosed.
Donations to MPs in political parties were not disclosed today.
People writing press releases and letters to Editor, outraged because Zoe McKenzie and Sarah Race disclosed $0, are spreading misinformation.
The best way to counter misinformation is with facts.
This was my first engagement with Hannah who now tells me she opened her @mo.money.589914 FB account so she could respond to this post.
Hannah:
Since you’re dealing in facts –
It’s not ‘misinformation’ to say that McKenzie and Race disclosed $0. It appears on the AEC data. That is a fact.
Also a fact – we will never know who funded McKenzie and Race’s campaigns in Flinders. Their donations and expenditure data is aggregated to the national level, and will not be reported by electorate. So we’ll never know who funded the smear campaigns, attack ads, mail outs, campaign expenses, staff, etc etc of these campaigns and what those exact dollars were. That is fact.
There is no misinformation to correct, so whoever ‘asked’ you to correct, perhaps this will help with understanding
Sarah:
Hannah Williams Thanks for clarifying – once again it shows the nuance in the argument. The point I was making is that no MP in a political party discloses 6 months after an election, so it seemed (to me at least) unfair to single out McKenzie and Race. The best way to find out how much McKenzie and Race spent on their respective campaigns is to ask them. I asked them both after the election.
Hannah:
How is it unfair to say that we’ll never know what was spent in Flinders by the major parties (and their side groups) and who provided those funds? Just trying to understand what your actual critique is here.
Sarah:
My critique was simply that no MP in a political party disclosed their donations today.
If we want transparency in donations – as I think we all do – community independents need to show leadership (as many did) by revealing real time donations on their websites.
Hannah:
thanks for clarifying your critique, your original post said you were addressing misinformation. I agree, all candidates in an election should disclose donations in near real time, and the rules should be changed so that everyone is mandated to so there’s a standard across the board.
Sarah:
Thanks for engaging – and I welcomed your comments. I will think about changing the word “misinformation” in my post.
Given no MPs disclosed today (parties disclose in February, I think), it seemed disingenuous (is that a better word?) to highlight the fact that Zoe and Sarah had $0 – like Albo, Charmers Ley etc etc
Hannah:
Thanks for your responses. You mentioned McKenzie and Race as well as highlighted Smith in your post – so that seemed fair that I mention them by name as well. I’m still unsure of your reference to “press releases and letters to the editor” given there is nothing published from the publication you tagged on this matter, to even be able to challenge the substance of these rumoured press releases and letters to the editor, which you have called misinformation. Perhaps it could be useful to clear up, otherwise it just looks like gossip Thanks Sarah
Thanks Sarah Hannah
Also love to know how you are claiming that letters to the editor are spreading misinformation about data released this morning, when letters to the editor in MP news aren’t released for a couple of days still … ? (if it’s MP News you’re talking about)
Sarah:
I received several emails today from people who were outraged about Zoe disclosing $0, including a draft letter to editor that I was asked to provide feedback on. My feedback was that their outrage bemused me given the facts. I also said it was disinformation to state “Zoe refuses to disclose her donations”.
The purpose of the screenshot was to focus on the information that we actually learnt today.
Hannah:
thanks for clarifying. Despite it being within the rules, I’d agree with those who say it is outrageous that she can disclose $0. The rules themselves are outrageous. These are the rules the major parties made for themselves, to shelter the incredible architecture of third parties, shelf companies and foundations that fund them and expend on their behalf. We will never know where every single one of these dollars come from and how they’re spent to influence our vote. McKenzie could, in theory, decide to disclose what she does know was spent in Flinders, and provide the “leadership” that is demanded only of independents in this space. It *is* outrageous that there are ‘rules for thee, but not for me’.
Sarah:
Just had a look at a few of these emails. One stated: “Smith spent $1,712,798 and Zoe miraculously did not spend one cent.” I thought it was worth correcting this incorrect interpretation of today’s data.
Hannah:
I would say that letter is being a bit tongue in cheek 
Sarah:
Yes the email was tongue in cheek. The draft letter to editor, however, was not. She did not know that MPs in political parties did not disclose today.
Hannah:
despite that person not knowing how the rules work for today, it’s a great illustration of how rigged the system is with different rules for different candidates. The public are right to raise their eye brow about what was and wasn’t disclosed today.
Sarah
Agree the system needs to be more transparent – and that all candidates should be required to disclose donations at the same time.
48 hours after this article went live, I received emails from people who assumed Climate 200 were behind Hannah. For example, a person who followed the community independent movement closely during 2025 election: “Based on reading this entire interchange between you and Hannah, my guess is Climate 200 want you and your observations of their behaviour during Smith’s campaign out of the picture”. He also suggested that the “Climate 200 campaigners play harder and nastier than anything I have ever seen in party-politics.” Whether either of his statements are true, they provide further evidence of how Smith’s campaign was perceived by some in the Flinders electorate.
Others thought it was someone from the Smith’s campaign. Apparently, Smith’s campaign team members regularly changed names and identities online. I did not follow Smith’s social media, so I have no idea if this is correct. However, if it is, I am disappointed given the importance of “transparency” and “integrity” in the community independent movement.
My sleuthing determined that a Hannah Williams lives on the Mornington Peninsula. She used to live around the corner from Ben Smith. This could be a coincidence. It does not allow me to conclude that she was the actual person engaging with me on Facebook. Hannah could be anyone – or even an AI bot. I may never know.
In a Facebook post, I asked Hannah to phone me over the weekend. She didn’t. So all we have is speculation and intrigue.