Remove this Banner Ad

All Round Arseclown Tim Wilson

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

rachel's piece. which did not cover other dirty tricks like the catholic schools' writing to all parents falsely claiming the teals would cut catholic schools' subsidies, which would cost parents. and they it did so on the eve of the election, so the teals had little chance to refute it. so much for teaching truthfulness. very christian.

and we should all be concerned at the rise of these third-party organisations. advance is but one.

"It was clear things got a bit intense down in Goldstein during the 2025 federal election.

The campaign that saw former Liberal MP Tim Wilson oust independent Zoe Daniel was described at the time as “ruthless”, with Wilson having made no secret of his fervent desire to reclaim the bayside seat. In an AFR piece looking at how Wilson bucked the national trend, winning the seat by 175 votes, Daniel’s camp called it “brutal, hostile and abusive”, saying he exploited the trauma of the Jewish community. Crikey readers described his campaign as “nasty” and “dirty”, suggesting Daniel was “too decent” to go low in return.

In June, Daniel spoke out on ABC Melbourne, calling out the “unfair” tactics used by the Liberal Party and its “various proxies”, referring to groups like Advance and Repeal the Teal. Daniel said the campaign against her was “vicious” and “personal”, with lies spread that she was antisemitic and supported terrorists.

Then, in August, Labor MP Mark Dreyfus — whose Isaacs electorate shared a polling booth with Goldstein — took to parliament to decry the abusive and threatening behaviour of Wilson’s volunteers, noting Daniel ended up needing police protection after her car was posted online.

“One incident reported involved a Liberal campaigner verbally abusing two young women, including one who was just 17 years old, calling them ‘little scum’,” Dreyfus said, adding that Wilson failed to condemn such incidents, making risible excuses like “low blood sugar levels”.

As Dreyfus remarked, “abuse and intimidation can erode confidence in our democracy,” suggesting Goldstein was reflective of a “broader challenge facing democracies in Australia and across the world [in which] harmful political discourse, threats of violence and death, and the harassment of candidates are pushing people away from public life.”

But it’s not until you read the recent submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ (JSCEM) 2025 election inquiry that you get a full picture of just how bad things got in Goldstein.

While there was a clear rise in hostility at booths around the country, Goldstein seems to have reached another level, with almost an entire day of hearings put aside for Daniel campaigners, who say they faced aggression that left them afraid to wear their t-shirts or travel alone in public (police, in fact, advised them to travel in groups).

Submission 108, which came from a collective of Daniel volunteers, described various examples of being screamed at and threatened, with letters distributed to supporters’ letterboxes accusing them of antisemitism and saying they were “no longer welcome in this neighbourhood”.

Much of this aggressive behaviour is ascribed to volunteers for third-party organisations, including Repeal the Teal, the Teals Revealed and Advance, all of whom were present on booths advocating for voters to put Daniel last. But various submissions say campaigners often swapped between third-party and Liberal shirts, with one individual photographed in each.

A number of Daniel volunteers who identify as Jewish say they faced particularly horrific abuse from third-party group J-United, whose volunteers regularly accused them of being “self-hating Jews”. Daniel campaign analyst and rabbi Yaron Gottleib, who also appeared at the November 12 hearing, collated a survey of harrowing experiences (submission 104), with one Jewish teal supporter told he was “a kapo of the antisemite”, while another had his small business threatened for putting up a campaign poster.

The evidence of Daniel’s son Arkin (21:30 in the hearing recording, transcript here) was also harrowing, describing the “intimidation and abuse” that became part of everyday life for the Daniel-Reid family, from tailgating to doxxing to being told by one campaigner that “your mum is a bitch”. As Arkin told the inquiry, Wilson never condemned what was happening to his opponent, going so far as to accuse Daniel of “using” the doxxing incident “for political gain”.

Daniel did not herself give evidence at the hearing, but tells Crikey: “The campaign was divisive and toxic and it shouldn’t be this way. I hope the Liberal Party takes a good hard look at itself and its tactics. No candidate or community member should feel intimidated when engaging with the election process.”

Sue Barrett, a former Daniel volunteer who also gave evidence to the JSCEM hearing, says there appears to be no consequences for what happened, with proxy groups like Advance getting worse between 2022 and 2025.

“You just had these emboldened, entitled people who felt they could do and say anything to the rest of us and hurl abuse at us,” she tells me via phone. “There are still people recovering from the trauma of what they experienced.”

“My take is that Goldstein was a laboratory. The tactics tested on us in 2022 and refined in the Voice [referendum] in 2023 were fully deployed in 2025, and they worked.”

Barrett recently posted about the snarky way in which Wilson replies to some constituents who campaigned for Daniel, remarking upon that fact in replies from his official parliamentary email address — emails Crikey has sighted.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Wilson did not specifically address this or any other matter put to him, pointing instead to comments the Goldstein MP made in parliament about homophobia, and wishing his opponents a pleasant summer.

“Mr Wilson’s office has sadly had to make its fourth formal report this morning to the Australian Federal Police about Teal volunteer intimidation against his team.

“Mr Wilson has commented on election conduct in the House of Representatives: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar..._Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/28839/&sid=0104

“Mr Wilson has lived the journey of the former member and her proxies. Mr Wilson made a decision the Sunday morning after the 2022 election to accept the result because life is too short to be captured by anger. He hopes they enjoy summer and find peace.”

Like Dreyfus, Barrett believes all of this represents an existential threat to our democracy, amid concerns the tactics seen in Goldstein will be rolled out across the rest of the country.

“What happened in Goldstein 2025 was a warning,” she says grimly. “What happens next is a choice.”
 
The Punter said:
I can remember him rather publicly (does Tim know another way?) staying in Canberra during Victorian lockdowns.
Click to expand...

i missed the presser where timmy timmy said he was abandoning us in favor of canberra to escape the covid restrictions. and thanking us for financing his and his partners' weeks in the capital.

he snuck out and got caught, and had no choice but to fess up.

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Not Important said:
i missed the presser where timmy timmy said he was abandoning us in favor of canberra to escape the covid restrictions. and thanking us for financing his and his partners' weeks in the capital.

he snuck out and got caught, and had no choice but to fess up.

Click to expand...

I can certainly remember a social media post from the time from him regarding it. Might not be up any more, and I'm not looking for it because someone else posting social media posts around here is a demarcation issue.
 
a few take-home points made by zoe in "the sunday shot". link to the show at the end.

1. "Our evidence and our post-election research show that roughly $2.5 million was spent in Goldstein by five third-party groups, all on the conservative side. So, Advance, Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia, Reveal the Teals and repeal the Teals or Teals revealed. Much of it was very personal against me, and certainly the advertising, the attack advertising in Goldstein and the behaviour in Goldstein was far worse than any other seat.

We've done this analysis, and I've seen the data. So that is a fact, and unfortunately, it's the leading edge of a big change I think that will happen particularly in the context of the so-called euphemistically named donation reforms that are coming, where you'll see increasing numbers of these proxy groups trying to influence elections or having to try to influence elections because individual candidates will be limited in what they can spend in their seats. So, I see it as a bit of a testing ground for what we might see increasingly in federal elections, particularly. It's very unfortunate."

these proxy groups are a real concern as they often spread misinformation and are used as a mechanism to get around the donation provisions.

2. "We know that there was direct overlap between the Liberal Party's volunteers and some of these organisations because we actually saw people swapping t-shirts outside booths and things like that.There was a very direct connection in that sense. Were they working together? Not sure"

if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck......oh, and isn't timmy's friend, died-in-the-wool liberal, and his goldstein advisor, jason falinski, up to his eyeballs in australians for prosperity? and isn't the coal lobby a major sponsor?

when asked whether timmy has ever condemned the appalling behaviour, zoe suggested :

He has not, and indeed the Liberal Party's commentary during the campaign was to try to flip it back on to me in the way that they responded to things that were happening. So, for example, when I was doxed, the response from the Liberal Party was to suggest that I was using the fact that I was doxed for political purposes. Having had my car photographed and published on the internet, and having been followed home and all sorts of other things that happened.

My son, who's now 18, testified before the joint standing committee on electoral matters. It was something that I was a little bit nervous or unsure about whether he should do that. But he really wanted to say on behalf of families that he feels that there should be a code of conduct for candidates. They should have to call out that kind of behaviour. The standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept, and that it overflows onto families as well as the candidate themselves. My son was also followed and tailgated when he was driving around the electorate on his' P' plate only 5 months after he'd got his licence. So, you know, if you let this stuff go, it enables."

3."Also, you know, a lot of the volunteers who also testified before the committee were subject to various forms of abuse and were made to feel really vulnerable. And that's damaging to democracy. And, you know, one of the beautiful things about the community independent movement has been to engage people in democracy and to get people involved. And arguably not only those who are involved in the community independence movement, but also people who have campaigned for candidates for the major parties, because they've become engaged or re-engaged in the democratic process. And that's something to foster and protect, not something to squash."

 
The Punter said:
I can certainly remember a social media post from the time from him regarding it. Might not be up any more, and I'm not looking for it because someone else posting social media posts around here is a demarcation issue.
Click to expand...
i'd be interested in it, tp. more importantly, when it was published, if at all, and in what context. i can't imagine him skedaddling off to canberra at our expense to avoid the restrictions and publicising it.
 
Not Important said:
i'd be interested in it, tp. more importantly, when it was published, if at all, and in what context. i can't imagine him skedaddling off to canberra at our expense to avoid the restrictions and publicising it.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it was a post of him in an enclosed verandah/balcony like situation, stating this was where he needed to be (rather than in his electorate) so he could do the important work of being an MP. My memory could be faulty, but I think you could understand my motivation not to be thinking aloud in this instance.

On the third parties, I have always been against them getting involved in campaigns, right from their first meaningful contribution in Victoria (the UFU and Ambulance Unions outside polling places in 2014) or what GetUp attempted in 2016 and 2019. Again, my solution is simple: donations only to registered political parties, unlimited but published in real time, only by natural persons, to the exclusion of any other group.
 
Last edited:
The Punter said:
IIRC, it was a post of him in an enclosed verandah/balcony like situation, stating this was where he needed to be (rather than in his electorate) so he could do the important work of being an MP. My memory could be faulty, but I think you could understand my motivation not to be thinking aloud in this instance.

On the third parties, I have always been against them getting involved in campaigns, right from their first meaningful contribution in Victoria (the UFU and Ambulance Unions outside polling places in 2014) or what GetUp attempted in 2016 and 2019. Again, my solution is simple: donations only to registered political parties, unlimited but published in real time, only by natural persons, to the exclusion of any other group.
Click to expand...
i wasn't suggesting you were an advocate of the third-party ploy, but that the liberals are prolific.

we have differing recollections of the wilson escape. mine was it ebbed out. firstly, someone sussed he and his partner were there, then later it was at taxpayers' expense.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Not Important said:
i wasn't suggesting you were an advocate of the third-party ploy, but that the liberals are prolific.

we have differing recollections of the wilson escape. mine was it ebbed out. firstly, someone sussed he and his partner were there, then later it was at taxpayers' expense.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I was just addressing the issue of third parties. I did not think you had suggested as such, but I thought a restating of my position was worthwhile.
 
The Punter said:
IIRC, it was a post of him in an enclosed verandah/balcony like situation, stating this was where he needed to be (rather than in his electorate) so he could do the important work of being an MP. My memory could be faulty, but I think you could understand my motivation not to be thinking aloud in this instance.

On the third parties, I have always been against them getting involved in campaigns, right from their first meaningful contribution in Victoria (the UFU and Ambulance Unions outside polling places in 2014) or what GetUp attempted in 2016 and 2019. Again, my solution is simple: donations only to registered political parties, unlimited but published in real time, only by natural persons, to the exclusion of any other group.
Click to expand...

I'd personally prefer if a central body handled all political donations.

All then distributed evenly at a set time prior to the election, every political party has the same platform, same budget and ability to market themselves.

They can choose TV, Radio, Socials if they chose, but they all have the same budget.

No more lobbying, blackmail, conflicts of interest etc.

If the political donations dry up, run a budgetary line item to cover the cost every election cycle, a fair deal for fair and balanced democracy.


If the Libs, ALP, Teals can out message an independent or a minor party representative they should be able to prove it.
 
Last edited:
Sphynx said:
I'd personally prefer if a central body handled all political donations.

All then distributed evenly at a set time prior to the election, every political party has the same platform, same budget and ability to market themselves.

They can choose TV, Radio, Socials if they chose, but they all have the same budget.

No more lobbying, blackmail, conflicts of interest etc.

If the political donations dry up, run a budgetary line item to cover the cost every election cycle, a fair deal for fair and balanced democracy.


If the Libs, ALP, Teals can out message an independent or a minor party representative they should be able to prove it.
Click to expand...
It treats all parties exactly the same regardless of popularity. At our lowest ebb in May, the Liberals (together with the Nationals) still managed to get 4.9 million people to put a 1 next to our candidates. The Trumpet of Patriots Party ran in (I think) every seat and got under 300,000. That advantage shouldn't be wiped out as you have suggested.

Under your plan I could start a party tomorrow and as long as I met the conditions for registration (which is 500 members I believe) I would instantly be on the same financial footing as a party with mass membership and a history of government.

It would also completely eliminate donations to political parties. Most donors won't donate if they believe any part of their donation will end up with parties they vehemently disagree with.

And as I have said before, I think there are better ways to spend taxpayer's money that getting politicians elected.
 
The Punter said:
It treats all parties exactly the same regardless of popularity. At our lowest ebb in May, the Liberals (together with the Nationals) still managed to get 4.9 million people to put a 1 next to our candidates. The Trumpet of Patriots Party ran in (I think) every seat and got under 300,000. That advantage shouldn't be wiped out as you have suggested.

Under your plan I could start a party tomorrow and as long as I met the conditions for registration (which is 500 members I believe) I would instantly be on the same financial footing as a party with mass membership and a history of government.

It would also completely eliminate donations to political parties. Most donors won't donate if they believe any part of their donation will end up with parties they vehemently disagree with.

And as I have said before, I think there are better ways to spend taxpayer's money that getting politicians elected.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Zero donations also means a massive reduction in corruption.

I thought elections were a carriage of democracy and not an employment scheme, but that’s just me.

I think clean democracy is a perfectly good way to spend public funds. It would be a blip in the budget.

Let’s be honest, it would be a enormous cost saving exercise’s in real terms.

How is public spending effected if the sitting government isn’t on the hook financially with the Trade Unions?
 
Sphynx said:
Correct.

Zero donations also means a massive reduction in corruption.

I thought elections were a carriage of democracy and not an employment scheme, but that’s just me.

I think clean democracy is a perfectly good way to spend public funds. It would be a blip in the budget.

Let’s be honest, it would be a enormous cost saving exercise’s in real terms.

How is public spending effected if the sitting government isn’t on the hook financially with the Trade Unions?
Click to expand...
My solution solves the Trade Unions issue: only donations from natural persons.

Everyone taking arbitrary turns at government would also result in a massive reduction in corruption, but then again, I think the word corruption is thrown around to describe a wide range of behaviour from the un-preferable to undesirable to questionable to outright criminal. I don't agree with most around here on the scope of the problem.

Publicly funded campaigns are also a way of employing people. I've seen political operatives eyes light up at the prospect of rivers of taxpayer's cash being provided to fund political operations.
 
The Punter said:
My solution solves the Trade Unions issue: only donations from natural persons.

Everyone taking arbitrary turns at government would also result in a massive reduction in corruption, but then again, I think the word corruption is thrown around to describe a wide range of behaviour from the un-preferable to undesirable to questionable to outright criminal. I don't agree with most around here on the scope of the problem.

Publicly funded campaigns are also a way of employing people. I've seen political operatives eyes light up at the prospect of rivers of taxpayer's cash being provided to fund political operations.
Click to expand...

It was only one example.

Nobody should be able to influence political decisions and public money for personal gain.

Nobody.

It’s a ridiculous premise and only enables corruption.

What positives are there? Other than reducing public spending? Of which electoral costs pro rata across an election term would be completely inconsequential.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

All Round Arseclown Tim Wilson

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top