In response to my last post about Jess Healy, the Democrat’s Victorian Senate Candidate, the woman herself responded via my comments and then via email. I have included (with her permission) the exchange of emails between us.

Jess Healy Email #1

Hi Kartar,

I respectfully disagree that the Democrats have stopped fighting the good fight. One of the things i really appreciate about my party is that it includes a diverse range of people with different opinions, who sometimes vote differently. This is sometimes very difficult for the party, and for members and supporters. Still I feel passionate about our ability to be both a party with a set of common principles and individuals who may differ on particular issues. I can understand your anger about the GST, and would be interested to know what other compromises you disagreed with.

For the record, if I had been given the opportunity to vote on the GST, I would have voted against it. I could not have done otherwise. However, while I was unhappy with the introduction of the GST, and struggled with the role that the Democrats played in this decision, I feel that as individuals each person involved in that decision had their own reasons and justifications for making the decisions they did. I do not believe that any of those individuals are unprincipled people.

It is easy, when the mainstream media present something in a particular way, to believe it is exactly as they write it. Much can be gained from conversation with the individuals concerned as well as reading the simplified version in the paper. A quote in a news story is never complicated enough to take in the range of human emotions and experiences that make us who we are and prompt us to make the decisions we do. Kneejerk reactions are common, but they are not always correct.

In case you’re interested, if i succeed in my campaign i will vote with the party AND with my conscience. Where the party line and my conscience disagree, i will vote with my conscience while taking into account the will of the members and the spirit of co-operation in the party room. It’s a bit of a juggling act i guess, but you don’t run for parliament because it’s going to be easy. There is no reward i would consider sacrificing my principles for. My principles are sometimes going to be different from other people’s principles – other members of the party, and other members of the voting public. I hope that when there is a difference of opinion on an issue, the person who disagrees with me will do so with some respect for me as a person.

I myself am guilty of a lack of respect for some people in politics (trying not to point at the prime minister). I am trying to find the balance between respect for and criticism of. I am trying to combine my respect and my criticism with a healthy irreverence and a sense of humour. It’s difficult. I’m perhaps still very young in many ways, still trying to cope with the fact that some people will, whether i like it or not, write unpleasant things about me without ever having spoken to or met me. Mostly, what they write won’t take into account that i am actually a really friendly, down to earth, normal kind of person, despite the stupid “young one legged bisexual vegetarian catholic blah blah blah” thing. Really that sentence is just a whole bunch of labels that describe small parts of me, a collection of funny words that make a good start to an article. They don’t describe me, any more than “nerdy writer of bad poetry, who dyes her hair bright colours, sings opera in the shower, wears pink shoelaces in her boots and occasionally runs for parliament” describes me accurately. I – like everybody else – am too complicated to be simplified.

There is an exchange between two characters in west wing that i find profoundly relevant here – and note that there is ALWAYS a quote from west wing that i can find profoundly relevant to whatever i’m saying

President Josiah Bartlet: We agree on nothing, Max.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet: Education, guns, drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes – you name it, we disagree.
Senator Lobell: You know why?
President Josiah Bartlet: Because I’m a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir. And I’m a gun-toting, redneck son-of-a-bitch.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, you are.
Senator Lobell: We agree about that.

Hopefully one day you will meet me, and you will find me to be of sound mind and good heart, and worthy of your respect. Perhaps even worthy of your support.

Yours sincerely,
Jess

My response

Jess,

Okay wasn’t expecting quite the essay. I’ll try to respond to each point you’ve raised in order as best I can.

The core principals of the Australians Democrats as I see them, aside for its specific policy positions, that are supposed to differentiate the Democrats from other political parties are (and I am pretty sure I am quoting verbatim here but this is from an old copy of some literature and these could have changed in some minor details)

1. WE REPRESENT ALL AUSTRALIANS

We are not tied to any wealthy power base – big unions, big business or powerful industrial and professional groups. When making decisions and formulating policy, we are free to consider the best interests of ALL Australians.

2. WE ARE FULLY DEMOCRATIC

All decisions on policies and leadership positions are made by secret postal ballot in which all members equally have the right to vote. There are no committees or caucuses to impose policy or decisions on the membership.

3. OUR POLITICIANS HAVE A CONSCIENCE VOTE

Our politicians are expected to follow party policy but they can exercise a conscience vote provided they are willing to justify it to the membership. We do not force our politicians to vote like sheep nor undermine their integrity by compelling them to vote against their own consciences.

My issues with the Australian Democrats probably date back to the mid-90s. The first straw for me was in 1996 with the attempt by the then Senator Cheryl Kernot to adjust the ‘truth in advertising’ platform of the party to include what amounted to (for me at least) restrictions on freedom of speech. The Bill thankfully was later ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. It also became obvious that the principal of a conscience vote was being eroded here.

Then came the deplorable Workplace Relations Act in 1996. Andrew Murray and Cheryl Kernot being the key offenders here. A compromise here that stuck a significant knife in the working conditions of Australians and allowed the Liberal Party to mount significant attacks on the union movements and through those attacks on the broader working conditions of Australians.

Then of course came the GST. Here the party obviously not only let down the membership (who by my straw poll of people at the time DID not support compromise) on the issue of a GST or at least not on the terms of the paltry compromises achieved by Senators Lees and Murray. I would acknowledge both Senators Despoja and Bartlett voted their conscience against the GST and as a result (and almost certainly inadvertently – well at least I hope so) sparked the political infighting that has cost the party a considerable amount of respect and support. Indeed interestingly it could be argued that Senators Bartlett and Despoja were not so much voting their conscience when they opposed the GST but rather voting with the membership of the party and operating by the abiding principals of the Democrats. But I digress…

But let me leave aside my history with the Democrats – I suspect we are not going to agree on this and it would be counter productive to argue. I am pleased to hear you would have voted against the GST but I am not so sure about your comment concerning the principles of those who did or did not vote for the GST. This comes back to the principals of the party as I have stated above. The fact that those people who did vote for the GST did have their own reasons and justifications doesn’t lesson the POTENTIAL that their acts were unprincipled. Especially in light of the guiding principals of the party to support the mandate of the membership. I don’t believe that the Senators who voted for the GST did support the mandate of the membership. Nor do I believe that voting in the GST represented the best interests of all Australians. So on what grounds did they vote? And were those reasons and justifications principaled?

Additionally I am not making judgements on the party based on media reporting. I am making judgements on the party based on my interactions with it. From personal experience I can tell you that I have little faith in the media to report on issues without spin. Indeed the News Limited media seems especially challenged in this area.

Next whilst I applaud your sentiment that you will vote with your conscience and with the party I must confess I find the idea somewhat naive. My intent here is not to patronise you. Much kudos for standing in the first place and as you have stated it will not be an easy thing to either get elected or serve in Parliament with integrity and principal. But at the end of the day you belong to a party. A party that is under considerable pressure and is in the midst of what I perceive as a crisis of purpose and direction. I believe you will find that at some point you will have to sacrifice that independence.

I did want to briefly speak to your belief that during a difference of opinion your opposition will respect you are a person. I firmly believe they won’t. The Liberal Party and the ALP both operate on a level of thuggery and malice, and here I would cite the caustic Member for Warringah, the highly disagreeable Tony Abbott who exemplifies this sort of behaviour, that preclude feelings of personal respect for their opponents. The recent events surrounding the attacks on Mark Latham should give you a picture of the depth and extent to which political parties will go to undermine their opposition. In this light perhaps I can suggest that some people will not only write but say unpleasant things to you AFTER having met you and spoken to you.

I agree with you “most of what they write won’t take into account that i am actually a really friendly, down to earth, normal kind of person”. Additionally I agree with you (with some reservations that I’ll address below) that descriptions of you of the type that I used and you have also used in your email are just labels. But I fear that not only won’t those commenting on you take into account the kind of person you are but additionally they won’t care about the kind of person you are. On two levels. The first level is that it doesn’t matter to those portraying you if they take into account who you actually are or how you feel. They just want to make their point – either to sell copy or achieve some political agenda. The second level is that labels are useful to people. Many of the electorate can’t, won’t or is simply not interested in getting to know much about their political candidates. This is even if they care and are not simply voting on party lines. Those that do express an interest often rely on those labels to provide at least some information on which they can make their decisions about who they vote for.

My reservation about your use of the word labels is that some of those ‘labels’ you listed I hope would be more than just a label. I would presume that your sexual identity, your disability and your faith would all be key contributors to your beliefs, morality and ethical viewpoint. They should be more than just labels and indeed they should be grounds on which people should be able to both define and potentially challenge your beliefs and ideas and well as your policy positions. I previously mentioned Tony Abbott. He is a prime example of this. His hard-line Catholicism heavily influences his political positions. Indeed so to with Peter Costello. Whilst being a hard-liner on industrials relations (cite the H. R. Nicholls Society) and economics (the GST, tax policy, etc) in some respects he is also the brother of the Revd. Tim Costello and grew up in the same household and appears to share some of the same liberal social beliefs. I would be careful throwing around the word ‘label’ because whilst a journalist for example may like the ability to categorise you (or to make the story more interesting) they won’t hesitate to challenge you on the tenets of those ‘labels’ if they think it’ll add value to their theory.

Lastly I don’t doubt the soundness of your mind: there was reasoned argument behind both your original comment and your email. I can’t speak to your good heart simply because I don’t know you but you do appear passionate about your beliefs and your desire to raise the profile of the issues that are important to you. Indeed I am sure you are a very nice person. My attack on your personal attributes was most unfair and indeed I assure you somewhat out of character for me and probably the consequence of my depth of feeling about the past actions and present position of the Democrats. As to my support? Well that would greatly depend on your views on the current state of the Australian Democrats as a party and whether you perceived there was some requirement for party reform or for a review of the strategic position of the party in light of the challenges of the Greens and the changed perception of the position of the party in the Australian political arena.

Kind Regards

Kartar

And lastly Ms Healy’s reply to my email – making this a damn long post.

Kartar,

you may need an entire new section for our exchange of emails! Sorry this one is – like my first email – so long, but I do feel that there is a lot to cover in responding to your last email.

I think that yes, we are likely to disagree on some things no matter how long we discuss them. Having listened to each of the Democrat senators, I will never be convinced that any of them are unprincipled people. Some of them do things I disagree with, but that doesn’t make them unprincipled. I look at the range of decisions each of them has made over the years and the sum total of those – rather than one or two decisions that disappointed me – are what I base my judgement on. I believe they have all tried very hard to balance their own consciences, the will of the membership, and the interests of the Australian people.

This excerpt from Andrew Bartlett’s speech to the National Conference this year might be of interest to you: “When the Democrats raise the issue of dishonesty, there is no doubt that some people will immediately point to the GST and accuse us of dishonesty. I could point to the statements that the Democrats released regarding the GST prior to the 1998 election. We said before the election it was possible we would pass a heavily modified GST. And since then this party has spent a long time debating whether enough was achieved at the time and we all know there are different views on that. However, regardless of the differing views about what could or should have been done, there is no doubt that that many Australians felt very let down by the decision that was made and I believe it is appropriate to acknowledge that feeling and apologise to those people who feel we let them down.”

You found the idea that i will vote with the party and with my conscience ‘somewhat naive’. What i actually said after my first statement was that “Where the party line and my conscience disagree, i will vote with my conscience while taking into account the will of the members and the spirit of co-operation in the party room.” Where possible, I will vote with the party. When I cannot, I will vote with my conscience. The best interests of the Australian people and the will of the Democrats membership will come into every decision. The complexity of this balancing act is not lost on me, and I am not so naive that I think I can promise to get that balance right every time. What i can promise, however, is to do my best.

OK, next point… you firmly believe that my opposition will not respect me as a person when they disagree with my opinions. What I said was that I HOPE they will have some respect for me as a person. I’m not stupid. I know how vicious politics is, and how likely it is that personal attacks will abound if I am ever elected. The difference between what I hope for and what I expect is vast. I know that not everyone will like me or what I’m saying. It’s a fact of life, and it’s a big part of politics. But just because I expect many other politicians to be disrespectful towards me, I shouldn’t stop promoting the concept of respect for those we disagree with.

Political opponents aside, what about journalists, blog writers, and political commentators? We live in a democracy where these people, as well as members of the public, have the right to criticise politicians and political candidates. You agreed that people wouldn’t take into account that I am a friendly, normal, down to earth person when they wrote things about me. What i didn’t add to that comment is that I actually have no right to expect them to take it into account. I am a political candidate, and therefore they have the right to criticise what I say, what I do, and who I am. Again, that’s part of politics. To a certain extent, I just have to toughen up – even when what is said is offensive, and hurts me just like it would hurt anybody. With time I think I WILL toughen up, but I’m still getting used to being called things like ‘media whore’ and ‘twisted’ and ‘fucked up’. Give me some time and I’ll be able to let it go instead of getting upset.

But if the person is not being incredibly offensive, I think it is worth letting them know that you have read what they wrote, and trying to begin a conversation. I have gone from being slightly offended by your original post to thinking of you as an intelligent and respectful person with reasoned arguments – someone I can have an interesting conversation with about politics. There is disagreement on some points, and yet there is respect. I actually enjoy being around smart people who disagree with me. It’s stimulating, and it’s challenging, and it’s entirely possible i’ll end up learning something, or coming to a more balanced and understanding perspective than the one I began with…

Sincerely,

Jess