Three community groups – Voices of Mornington Peninsula, Progressives of the Peninsula and, more recently, Independent 4 Flinders (I4F) – spent four years building grassroots support for a strong community independent candidate in the federal seat of Flinders. The aim was to do politics differently – transparency, accountability, being our best selves and political integrity were our core values.
In 2021, Greg Hunt, health and aged care minister in the Morrison government, retired. Zoe McKenzie was preselected as the Liberal candidate for Flinders. At 2022 election, McKenzie won the seat with an increased majority. However, she had only served one term. As such, the 2025 federal election offered the opportunity of a generation: the chance to end more than 40 years of Liberal Party dominance in Flinders.
And we blew it, despite (or perhaps because of?) Climate 200 donating more than $1 million to Smith’s campaign.
On 19 May 2025, I emailed Holmes à Court and Faye (Climate 200) because I wanted to discuss with them what went wrong,
Hi Simon and Byron
As you both know, my involvement/interest in the community independent movement began in 2012.
I helped bring the ‘Voices of’ movement to Mornington Peninsula, stood as their candidate (to keep Voices alive after Claire withdrew), started the Progressives of the Peninsula and more recently Independent for Flinders.
I believed a community independent would be successful in Flinders in 2025. I am very disappointed, as I am sure you are too.
What do you think could have been done better?
I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss with you both.
Hast completed proof reading my report at the end of June. During my career as a qualitative researcher, I have witnessed the difficulties of bringing men to the table to impart critical, constructive feedback. I soon learnt that powerful men were more likely to listen to such feedback if women passed it on ‘gently’ in face-to-face discussions.
On 25 June, I emailed Holmes à Court and Faye again. This time I requested a 30-minute face-to-face meeting.
Hi Simon and Byron
As per my email on 19 May, I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss the disappointing outcome in Flinders.
After spending 4 years building a grassroots movement, we had a genuine chance of a community independent winning Flinders in 2025.
Those of us who support the community independent movement need to learn from the mistakes made in Flinders during the 2025 election. We don’t want to make the same mistakes again in 2028.
I have written a detailed timeline “Community Independent Movement in Flinders: lessons from the 2025 federal election”.
Only an anal qualitative researcher like myself would put together a 60-page document like this. I have done so with the best of intentions.
Please let me know when you have a spare half hour.
I also emailed Heijden, a member of Independent 4 Flinders organising team.
Hi Gerard
I hope you are well.
With my commitment to transparency, I am sharing my emails with Simon and Byron.
Although I disengaged from Ben’s campaign, I was inundated with emails, texts, screenshots from social media/WhatsApp, personal messages before and during Ben’s campaign. After the disappointing loss, I thematically analysed this data. I did this because I want the community movement in Flinders to learn from our mistakes.
Many so-called “community leaders” have read my 60-page report and agree with my analysis.
In our view, we must look at the facts. We must stop saying things like “Ben won on the night and only lost because of postal votes” (said in chat during Community Independent Projects debrief)
I’d prefer you did not share this email with other members of the organising team. In the past, they have been reactive to any criticism.
However, if you would like meet sometime to hear the feedback, I would happily share my analysis with you.
.
I had anticipated that both Climate 200 and members of I4F organising team would welcome the research report, reflect on the critical feedback and engage in a constructive discussion. Disappointingly, no one from I4F or Climate 200 has read the report despite numerous invitations. On a positive note, others in different electorates have read the report – and found it extremely useful.
In mid-July, Hast emailed me to say he was considering writing a commentary piece about the Flinders election. He told me he supported the community independent movement and hoped to start a constructive conversation. Given Hast’s expertise in this area, I thought his analysis would be welcomed.
I have good relationships with opinion editors at The Age, The Guardian and Michael West. I offered to introduce Hast to them. I felt sure they would be interested in his reflections.
On July 31, Mike Hast’s article Flinders flounder. What went wrong for Ben Smith and Climate 200? was published. After reading the article in Michael West Media (MWM), a well-informed person from the independent movement contacted Michael West Media to say:“It was about time this story got told,” and added that these concerns of how Climate 200 operate “go well beyond Flinders”.
.
At 12.04pm on 31 July (and again at 2.30pm and 3.50pm), I received three emails from three different people with screenshots of a conversation in a private WhatsApp group. The emails not only informed me that Hast’s piece had been published but also informed me that the conspiracy theories had begun.
Smith: What a load of bullshit. This is clearly informed from a disenchanted former ‘supporter’ of the movement who didn’t get their way. Full of lies. No request for comment. Not worth the ‘paper’ it’s written on. Imagine pretending to quote me but just quoting another Ben Smith from Alabama…
Funny how on the very day ‘Progressives of the MP’ re-emerges, this article is published
O’Brien: Asolutely (sic) no coincidence.
How strange to create a conspiracy theory around the publication of Hast’s article and my email to members of the Progressives. These two events were, of course, unrelated.
At this point, I remind the reader that O’Brien and his wife were friends of mine (report point 85). However, my friendship with O’Brien had been significantly damaged on two occasions after he had joined the I4F organising team. Firstly, during a conversation after a forum that I had organised (report points 100-102) and later during a long and very hurtful conversation on 28 October (report points 125 – 126; 139).
It was due to our friendship that O’Brien had joined I4F organising team soon after Holmes à Court had suggested I leave the I4F organising team. On 24 September 2024, Holmes à Court had texted me to say it would be highly damaging if I4F was known as “Sarah’s movement” or worse “Sarah’s lefty group”.
As far as I know, O’Brien had no experience working in community groups. However, I thought his professional background – working on Public-Private projects – would be an asset to the organising team. I had also been told that he was bored in his retirement – he wanted more in his life than playing golf three times a week, walking dogs and project managing the building of a new house.
Rather than shoot off an angry response to Smith and O’Brien’s absurd WhatsApp message, I reflected on their exchange for a few hours. I also sent Smith and O’Brien’s WhatsApp message to several people – to hear what they thought about it. We were all bemused by Smith’s claim that the posts on Community of Christ Church Mobile Alabama FB page were not his posts.
However, Smith was correct when he asserted that I “didn’t get my way”. I had worked for 4 years to build a grassroots movement that was based on the values of transparency, accountability, being our best selves and political integrity. Smith’s campaign was the antithesis of these values, and it was heart breaking to watch all my hard work go down the drain – as I had suggested in a letter to The Saturday Paper.
To get my ducks in a row, I contacted Hast, the local journalist who had written the article that had upset Smith and O’Brien. I asked Hast if he had requested a comment from Smith. He replied:
“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.”
At 4.15 pm, I emailed the following to O’Brien and Smith.
Several people have sent me copies of what is being said on WhatsApp. I’ve also read what Ben has said on FB.
Please note the email I sent to Gerard on Tuesday (below). I was transparent about Mike Hast contacting me in May.
Mike is an experienced and rigorous journalist https://www.mpnews.com.au/author/mike-hast/
As far as I know, everything in his article is on the public record. However, if the article contains any inaccuracies, I am sure Michael West will remove them.
For the record, I remain committed to the community independent movement. Also, for your information, we started the Progressives yesterday because we were asked to share information about the public meeting this Saturday.
In my opinion, we need respectful debate about these issues, not conspiracy theories.
Happy to meet with you both anytime.
Smith replied by informing me that he had responded to Michael West Media with corrections “at length”. He also informed me that he had “no interest in engaging” with me.
When I read Smith’s reply on the Michael West Media, I was shocked by the number of lies in his response. For example, he claimed Kitchen Table Conversations (KTCs) had informed his campaign. Yet no KTCs had been undertaken since 2021. Given the KTCs were conducted (mostly by me) in different social and economic circumstances (when climate change not cost of living and housing was considered the most important issue in Flinders), these KTCs were not pertinent to Smith’s 2025 campaign.
Perhaps I am naive but I expect the truth from an ordained minister, irrespective of whether the ministry is in the Anglican Church or the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called the Community of Christ).
I responded to Smith’s document on Michael West Media’s website. An hour or so after emailing my response to Smith, he shot back a nasty email. This is further evidence that Smith is an unsuitable political candidate. Being open to all feedback is surely the minimum standard we should expect of someone who aspires to be a community leader.
At 6pm on 31 July, O’Brien emailed me. It is very disappointing that he did not just pick up the phone. If he had, this whole unpleasant saga could have been avoided.
Hi Sarah,
The fact that O’Brien had “never heard of the journalist before” highlighted the fact that O’Brien had recently moved to the Mornington Peninsula. Hast is a well respected local journalist who had been reporting on federal elections in Flinders for over 50 years.
Immediately after receiving O’Brien’s email, I phoned him to discuss the misunderstanding about Hast. He did not answer nor reply to my missed call. I assumed he would phone me to ascertain the facts about my relationship with Hast.
However, rather than ascertain the facts, O’Brien wrote a defamatory message that was not only untrue but also nasty. To say that I was “involved in the early days of i4F” was to diminish the 4 years work I had spent building the community independent movement on the Mornington Peninsula. I was not only “involved in the early days of i4F”, I spent several months networking with community leaders to ascertain their interest before chairing the inaugural I4F meeting in May 2024.
The text marked in bold in O’Brien’s WhatsApp message are lies.
Hi Everyone, On behalf of the I4F Organising Team we provide this update regarding the article published yesterday and to provide some additional background.
As you would expect the publisher has been contacted by Ben and a significant number of factual errors pointed out (my emphasis). We await an update and will advise accordingly, hopefully with their commitment to a retraction.
We can also confirm that neither the Independent for Flinders or the Independents for Mornington Peninsula organising teams were contacted by the journalist for comment or contribution to the article.
What we do know now, is that Sarah Russell, who was involved in the early days of i4F, has confirmed that she provided background information to the journalist for his analysis, including a catalogue of more than 400 communications she received from the community (my emphasis). Be assured we would never do that.
Sarah also informed us that she was provided with a running commentary from members of this WhatsApp group on the posts that were being made yesterday . Obviously that’s extremely disappointing if we have people on this platform covertly looking to harm our community. Presently, this is not a moderated forum and people are free to raise opinions and suggestions without restriction but keep in mind that we are looking to build a community movement that is respectful, inclusive and energised.
From I4F’s perspective Ben Smith’s 2025 Flinders campaign exceeded our initial expectations and what a close thing it was. During this phase of the various election cycles, let’s stay focussed (sic) on community building through positive dialogue and energetic involvement. Last Saturday’s forum was a fantastic start. There are many important and necessary community issues that we can have a voice and influence over if we can get ourselves organised and keep our goals firmly in sight.
This WhatsApp message showed a lack of understanding of an evidence-based qualitative report. Again, I phoned O’Brien. Again, he did not pick up nor return my call. So, I emailed him.
Hi Luke
I phoned to say that your latest WhatsApp message has been shared with me.
I have been fully transparent from the day when Ben’s candidacy was announced. As a qualitative researcher, I analysed the data from primary sources (emails etc sent to me over past 6 or so months). I informed Climate 200 (Simon and Byron) and I4F (Gerard).
I will now forward you these emails. There is 10 – 15 of them.
I accept that O’Brien may have been overwhelmed when he received so many emails. The reason I forwarded all these emails to O’Brien was because I was upset that someone I had considered to be a friend had defamed me. I felt I needed to show O’Brien that I had been transparent about my report. Heijden had not only received several emails about my report he had also received copies of all my emails to Holmes à Court. Transparency is a fundamental value of mine.
I responded to Smith’s reply on the MWM website. Months later, when O’Brien read my reply, he denied that he told me that Kate Lardner was on the selection panel. He emailed me to say: “Wrong Person”.
Let’s see if the following points (taken from my report) jog O’Brien’s memory:
On 28 October 2024, I spoke with O’Brien for an hour. During this conversation, O’Brien asked me whether I was intending to run as an independent on aged care. Not surprisingly, I felt devastated that he believed a scurrilous rumour that had been circulated. Given O’Brien was a friend, I had expected him to support me, not repeat a ridiculous rumour most likely started by someone on the I4F organising team.
After all the work I had done over the past four years to build the community independent movement, why on earth would I stand against the community endorsed independent?
Surely, O’Brien knew I had no interest in being a parliamentarian – I had only stood in the 2022 federal election because the endorsed Voices candidate had withdrawn after O’Connor split the vote. My reason for standing was to keep VMP alive. I would not have stood if I thought I had any chance of winning – I certainly had zero interest in working in Parliament.
I was surprised to receive more than 4% of primary vote. The money I received from the AEC reimbursed Heijden for the Hope Trucks. It was also used to start Progressives of the Peninsula. Has anyone asked Smith how he spent the $80,000 that he received from the AEC?
During this long conversation with O’Brien on 28 October 2024, he told me that Lardner had agreed to be on the selection panel. Months earlier, I had asked Lardner to join the selection panel but she had told me she was too busy. I told O’Brien that I was pleased Lardner had changed her mind.
Given only members of I4F organising team knew who was on the selection panel, and both Pitt and de Lapps were not speaking to me because I had commented on I4F’s lack of community building, KTCs and community forums, who did O’Brien think told me?
When Smith later told me that Lardner and Feehley had encouraged him to apply, I questioned whether it was appropriate that Lardner had sat on the selection panel. After the election, I asked Lardner how she managed this a conflict of interest.
Before I left I4F organising team, I had recommended two people to sit on the selection panel. In November, one of these people phoned me to say she had not been contacted about selecting a candidate. I then phoned the second person that I had recommended. She told me that she had not been available over the cup weekend, so had not sat on the selection panel.
I then phoned Heijden to ask why membership of the selection panel had been changed. During this phone call, Heijden told me he was not able to tell me who had sat on the selection panel. However, it was quite easy to guess, via some strategic questions, that it was likely that Heijden, Pitt and de Lapps had sat on the selection panel.
I do not know who made the decision to change the selection panel, or why it was changed. I do, however, know that members of I4F were not informed of the change of the selection panel.
I also know that when one of those originally appointed to the selection panel phoned de Lapps, de Lapps told her that only one member of the I4F organising team had sat on the selection panel: de Lapps. So perhaps my guess that Heijden and Pitt also sat on the selection panel was wrong.
On 2 August 2025, Mike West shared a text conversation with Holmes à Court. Wow. Pot.Kettle.Black
I shared Holmes à Court text exchange with numerous people. I was told that Holmes à Court expects criticism in Murdoch press, but not in a progressive media outlet. A leader in the community independent movement stated:
This is the first time that they’ve been seriously challenged in the media, and they don’t like it.
On 5 August 2025, I emailed Holmes à Court.
Hi Simon
I notice in your comments to Michael West that you didn’t put a name to your personal attack. However, I am surmising that you are referring to me.
I’m very curious regarding your claim that I have ‘blown up many organisations’. This claim seems a change of heart from 24 September 2024 when you were grateful for my work bringing the community together.
As I explained in my email to both you and Byron on 25 June 2025, I compiled my report “with the best of intentions”. I genuinely believe the insights in my report will help the community independent movement to realign with its values.
To clarify – My report is not my opinion – it is a collation of unsolicited emails, texts, screenshots, personal messages sent to me by people who were critical of the campaign.
I have been waiting for you to return from overseas so we can discuss my report. Very early on in my research career, I learnt that critical insights are best received when given face-to-face (i.e. not in writing).
I am confused by your statement that you are happy to talk with Hast. Why would Hast contact you? You are not Climate 200.
Hast is a very experienced journalist who has a reputation for rigour. I am sure he will correct any factual errors.
I have always respected you, Simon, and admired the work you do. I am happy to meet with you when you get home.
Soon afterwards, Hast forwarded me an email he had received outlining the changes that had been made to the article. Despite O’Brien’s assertion in his WhatsApp message that there were a “significant number of factual errors, and the impersonator of Hannah Williams (more about him soon) claim that Hast’s article was “defamatory“, the only significant change to Hast’s article was 5,258 votes to 5,257. This proves once again that Hast is a rigorous journalist.
Holmes à Court continued to contact Michael West, asking for the article to be removed from the Michael West Media website. Simon has now been given the nickname “WhineOn”.
In the meantime, I continued to receive unsolicited emails about Smith’s campaign and the new group Independents of Morn Pen. I replied to each email “Thank you for your email. I was not involved in Smith’s campaign. I am also not involved in Independents of Morn Pen.”
On 8 August 2025, I was told there was a rumour that I was responsible for “blowing up VMP” when in fact, this explosion was caused by Robbins. I had no further energy to respond to mistruths. So, I responded: “I don’t want to hear another word about the misinformation people (including people I considered to be friends) are spreading in WhatsApp.”
After this rumour, I decided to include some information about VMP at the beginning of my report. It is also important to document the history of how the factions formed in Flinders. I will leave that for another time – though I will say this. This factional thinking blew up I4F after the first meeting – Heijden surely remembers this meeting. We lost a wonderful woman who was considering being the community independent candidate for Flinders. After this set back, I had to work hard to keep I4F afloat, including chairing a meeting on 23 June 2024 that Emily Jones (Smith’s campaign manager) had cancelled. Surely someone experienced in community building knows that you never cancel a community meeting.
Over 30 people attended the second meeting. I4F was on its way.
Hast told me that he had received positive feedback about his article. I also received emails from people who had supported Smith who agreed with Hast’s article. For example, I received the following email from someone who worked on Smith’s campaign.
Just read the article in Michael West and it largely rings true to what I perceived through the campaign. The Community of Christ thing, whatever Ben and his team suggested, was a negative. It really did make people unsure about his honesty, I think it may have swayed a significant number of votes, my opinion. Ben is a great person and would have been a good member but I also suspect that a female candidate, which frankly we were expecting, may have done better. It can’t be a coincidence that all the lower house independents are female. Anyhow the article pretty well covers the problems and hopefully it will be a useful learning experience. It would be useful to try and find out why so many Greens and Labor voters preferenced Zoe ahead of Ben.
My report provides some explanations about why so many progressive voters – Greens and Labor – preferenced McKenzie ahead of Smith.
Holmes à Court’s “in confidence”
On 16 October 2025, a few days before the AEC disclosed how much Climate 200 donated to Smith’s campaign, I received an email from Holmes à Court marked “in confidence”. I am sure Holmes à Court knew writing “In Confidence” at the beginning of an email has no legal basis. It was a tactic one expects from a man trying to intimidate a woman. It didn’t work.
Due to Holmes à Court’s reputation for litigation, I will not share his email here. However, I chose to share with a member of my Stay Well Committee both Holmes à Court’s email and my reply. Later that night, I received the following response:
“Hannah Williams”
On 20 October 2025, a suspicious Facebook account began asking me questions about the community independent movement in Flinders. Given my willingness to meet anyone to discuss anything, I was disturbed by the fact that someone had gone to the trouble of creating a fake Facebook account for the sole purpose of engaging me in conversations. I was told this was yet another attempt to silence me.
This attempt to silence me began when Seán Marsh, a Climate 200 employee, asked me to remove a comment on Sorrento News Facebook page. I explained to Marsh that it was not appropriate for a Climate 200 employee to tell someone to remove a Facebook comment.
Believing I knew who was behind this ‘cloak and dagger’ nonsense (clearly someone with digital skills), I emailed Holmes à Court. I began my email with a cheeky “in confidence”.
Hi Simon
In confidence
While most Australians have been in mourning over Bondi, someone called Hannah Williams grilled me on Facebook about KTCs, Claire Boardman, VMP and why I stepped in as the Voices endorsed candidate.
Hannah Williams’ account had no photos, no friends, etc. Apparently this is the giveaway that the account was set up just for the purpose of engaging with me, and drawing me into conversations.
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. I am also not suggesting Climate 200, The Huddle or Watershed are behind Hannah. It has been suggested she may be an AI bot. We may all never know.
Transparency is a fundamental value of mine, so I shared my exchange with Hannah on my website: “A Facebook encounter with a stranger: Why the cloak and dagger behaviour?
A colleague who helped establish the community independent movement in Warringah in 2018 contacted me last night: “Your genuine commitment to transparency and integrity is what the community independent movement is all about…For Climate 200, transparency and integrity are merely campaign slogans.”
A few weeks ago, I contacted a member of the I4F organising team who had helped me start I4F in 2024. He sounded dispirited after Smith’s campaign: “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.”
Many people who were instrumental in forming the community independent movement in Flinders left political activism after the 2022 campaign due to the behaviour of both Conal Feehley (Despi’s campaign manager) and Kim Robbins (VMP board). Some put their energies into Flinders Fringe; others Western Port Writes, Save the Briars, Save our Seat or Save Rosebud Hospital.
Unlike them, I gave participatory democracy another crack – first with Progressives of the Peninsula and then I4F.
After 4 years spent building a grassroots movement based on community independent values, I too am dispirited.
I’ve had a terrible 12 months, culminating in ill-informed and unfair attacks from you, Ben Smith and Luke O’Brien after Mike Hast published HIS commentary piece on 31 July 2025.
After Ben and Luke’s defamatory WhatsApp messages on 31 July and 1 August respectively, I added a section in my evidence-based report titled ‘Enter Mike Hast’ (see attached). I also attach our email correspondence since the federal election, as a reminder of my persistence in trying to meet you and Bryon to give constructive feedback from members of I4F and Progressives of the Peninsula.
If you offered me an apology for text to Michael West, I would consider meeting you in the New Year.
Try curiosity not judgement
After reading the ad hominem attacks against the Liberal Party, McKenzie and Marsh on social media and MP News, I became concerned that some members of the community independent movement were unaware of, or had forgotten, the key tenets of the movement. Rather than engaging in mudslinging and negative campaigning, community independents focus on consulting with the community, evidence-based policies and being respectful to the other candidates.
In February 2025, a community leader had emailed me to say Smith campaign was focused “solely on beating the Liberals”. Was this due to Climate 200 and Watershed?
After the election result, I noticed a shift on social media. People who I knew supported the community independent movement shifted their online anger towards the Mornington Shire Mayor. In my opinion, their ad hominem attacks, both online and in letters to our local paper, were disgraceful. And to those using AI to write these letters, or signing the letter with a fabricated name, I shake my head in despair.
And when did we start blocking people on social media simply because a person disagreed or asked a question? Or disregard someone’s views because their husband or wife worked for a fossil fuel company or Murdoch press?
Finally, what type of person sends abusive texts late at night to someone with whom they disagree?
My aim over the past 12 months has been to promote civility in public debate. I invite people with whom I disagree to have coffee with me on my deck. Recently, I’ve had 30-minute “Courtside conversations” with numerous people including McKenzie, Crewther and Pingiaro. I wear my home-made T-Shirt: Try Curiosity. Not judgement*. I approach these conversations with an open mind, kind heart, rigour and evidence.
*I forgot to wear my ‘Try Curiosity. Not Judgement’ T-shirt during my courtside conversation with Pingiaro
As a final attempt to re-connect with O’Brien, I emailed him and his wife on 15 May 2026.
Hi Renske and Luke
I feel sad that we have not seen each other since the 2025 federal election. I valued my friendship with both.
Over the past year or so, many people with whom I disagree have accepted my invitation to talk (see attached). I hope you will too!
Would you like to pop in for coffee and a chat? Perhaps we could have a game of tennis too.
My signature included my logo:
Sadly, I received no reply. So, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, I have written this article by cutting and pasting from my report “Community Independent Movement in Flinders: lessons from the 2025 federal election” and my Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the 2025 federal election.
When I was a teenager, Mum gave me some advice about friendship. She told me a disagreement with friends was an opportunity to learn more about their character. Those who are willing to talk with you about a disagreement will be good friends for life. Those who don’t were never genuine friends. Until now, this advice had helped me navigate the world of friendship, and not to feel let down by people. However, this year I felt terribly let down by O’Brien and Heijden. I thought we had shared values. Clearly, I was mistaken.
Time to put this saga to bed.
THE END