A quick look at the website of the Queensland Greens after they failed to win the final Senate seat, reveals the cuddly, flora and fauna loving greenies are not quite as happy as they could be. See how senate candidate Drew Hutton responded to web posts from interested parties below:

Tony McLeod – Posted: Nov 4, 2004 – 1:21pm

Drew, Two points:

1. Are you in favour of healing the divisions? Or are you not?

Just about every message you have posted over the last week or so has attacked the Grassroots Greens with personal insults, including only yesterday: “naive or confused”, “malignant and opportunistic”, “less-than-intelligent”. Meanwhile you complain endlessly about being the victim. BTW, if you take umbrage with Rob Wilson’s posts and wish to refute them, then address them directly.

2. Above you refer to “discipline” when you really mean expulsion.

“…the Greens set a precedent when state council refused to DISCIPLINE a member”

If you had asked SC to discipline Peter Pyke you may have succeeded. But your intent was not to discipline, it was to punish by banishment. I recently read a call by someone on this website to “expel” the Grassroots Greens.

Would you support such a motion?

(Please note: The above post contains little or no personal criticism of an ad hominum character.)

Drew Hutton – Posted: Nov 4, 2004 – 3:47pm

Tony, You are very clever the way you make outrageous comments in a seemingly non-aggressive manner.

You know very well the only people to have undertaken genuine dispute resolution procedures are those who have been attacked by you and your factional colleagues – David Haigh and me. You also know the attacks on me for the past two years from the faction have been relentless and if, on rare occasions, I have allowed my frustrations to show, most fair-minded people would understand.

You also know full well your factional colleagues argued in state council (with your proxy firmly in their back pocket) that Peter Pyke was a heroic figure and you all wanted to give him a medal rather than support any disciplinary motion. In fact, I have kept several emails with you personally saying as much.

You also know very well I gave an explanation about the land clearing donation to the state council in 2003, I gave it again on this site after Rob Wilson’s post and Libby also re-stated it on this site. Anyway, why would I have a responsibility to respond to an email from Rob Wilson that starts with the implication that I am a “lying rodent” and proceeds to further defame me? That’s why the convener has ordered the thread removed from the site.

In response to your last question…I think the existence of factions is unconstitutional. You and your factional friends constitute a party within a party.

Drew

Drew Hutton – Posted: Nov 4, 2004 – 4:58pm

Tony and friends in the faction,

There is only one thing to do to retain your credibility. You have to make a complaint about me to the state council. The management committee is developing a process for such complaints right now and if I have been doing such terrible things for so long, it really is your responsibility to have me dealt with under S11 of the constitution. To do anything else would be to invite the conclusion from the real grassroots of this party that you just keep recycling old, discredited whinges in order to keep things destabilised within the party and act as a lightening rod for any potential recruits who have a general gripe against the world or perhaps against their grade 4 teacher. Oh, by the way, make your complaint better than that fanciful, ridiculous “Drew Hutton Dossier” that Rob Wilson put on the web site some time ago. It looked like Swiss cheese by the time it was pulled apart.

Drew

Drew Hutton – Posted: Nov 4, 2004 – 5:16pm

Victor,

Thank you for your postings – rational and incisive as ever. I have made many mistakes (the Cape York policy in the last election being one) but when I do I try to admit it and apologise if necessary. Mistakes are often made by people trying to do too many things and not thinking some through as much as they should. My attackers are often proven wrong about me but I have never received one apology and worse, they recycle the same garbage several months later. They also plump every time for the most conspiratorial, evil intent conclusions about my actions even without any evidence to support such conclusions.

With regard to your question about the secretive nature of the Grassroots Greens, can I make some points?

1. They do have some people who identify themselves as members of the faction but there is no open list.
2. They have a secret membership fee ($20).
3. They have two private email discussion lists, one for the outer circle and one for the inner circle.
4. They caucus before every meeting and bloc vote in the meetings.
5. They even have their own, semi-policies, the authoritarian social policies surrounding their peak oil statements being a good example.

In other words, they are a party within a party and the last time we had that it was the Socialist Workers Party in the early nineties and we kicked them out. I also believe the existence of such a group inside the Greens is unconstitutional because one of our key process goals is consensus decision making and that is nigh impossible to achieve with a caucusing, highly disciplined faction in our midst.

Drew

CJ Morgan – Posted: Nov 04, 2004 – 8:46pm

Yes indeed. For various and sometimes drastic (business and family) reasons I’ve taken very much a back seat with the Greens lately. However, I’ve observed the election campaign closely (if from a distance) and recent internal events, at least as they have manifested in these forums. I haven’t commented to date about the current resurgence in destructive internal shenanigans instigated by our singular “faction”.

I assume that anybody who’s familiar with the antecedents of the campaign in recent days by these people to put the boot into Drew Hutton wouldn’t be very surprised by their current antics, but as always they will prey upon the good will of relatively recently active members to manipulate our consensus ethos. On the other hand, I’m impressed that the new Management Committee seems to have resolved that this mess needs to be sorted out, and has apparently begun to implement processes that could well move us in that direction.

But – as Drew has pointed out and Victor (among others) has implicitly suggested – that just isn’t going to happen while this tiny minority of the Qld Greens is allowed to wield disproportionate influence via their factional tactics at State Council meetings and elsewhere.

Despite myself, I’m lately inclined to support moves to declare the “grassroots greens” a proscribed organisation under our Constitution.

As Drew has intimated, they behave more like a political party inimical to the interests of the Qld Greens than a dissenting “faction” of the Party. Further, there have been several instances lately where “factional” members have had their delegates’ credentials revoked once the real grassroots of their branch membership realised what they’ve been up to.

Here I apparently must take some responsibility for allowing my family and business to take precedence of late: it appears that the Granite Belt Greens (of which I am still the convener and a SC delegate, last I heard) were “represented” by Sarah Moles at the recent SC meeting, despite her status as a delegate having been specifically revoked at a branch meeting earlier this year (this because she had acted as a delegate for the “grassroots greens” faction rather than for the branch, and voted against the branch’s wishes on the issues of the Peter Pyke expulsion and the ratification of the Senate preselection, amongst other things).

Before anybody gets too excited with censorious zeal, let me say that I refer to minuted decisions of a branch meeting. I’m aghast that Moles was allowed to misrepresent the Granite Belt Greens yet again, but I guess also that the rest of the branch should share the responsibility.

Last time I looked (last night) the ‘fraction’ (as I prefer to call them) had 31 members in their ‘outer circle’ Yahoo forum – one must assume that the ‘inner circle’ is somewhat less numerous.

Really, the Qld Greens need to collectively rid ourselves of this handful of parasites, who derive whatever personal jollies they get from their scabrous actions by sabotaging the political aspirations of the wider Green movement. I certainly won’t be wasting too much energy on Green matters unless the Party can show some resolve in disciplining this small and malignant minority.

Finally, if Tony can claim that his various disingenuously vituperous posts are not “ad hominum” attacks, then the above must be considered a discourse of light and joy 🙂

Morgan 😕

Peter Fray

72 hours only. 50% off a year of Crikey and The Atlantic.

Our two-for-one offer with The Atlantic was so popular we decided to bring it back.

But only for 72 hours.

Use the promo code ATLANTIC2020 and you’ll get 50% off a year of Crikey (usually $199) and a year of digital access to The Atlantic (usually $70). That’s BOTH for just $129.

Hurry. Ends midnight this Thursday.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

Claim Now