The unaddressed issues in Greens NSW 1: The insinuations about Ella
Recent media commentary over fighting within the Greens NSW makes it clear that there isn’t much public understanding of what the conflict is actually about. For example, in Fairfax, Julia Baird wrote “Greens politicians Jenny Leong and Mehreen Faruqi clearly do not accept the findings of the investigation about Jeremy Buckingham, though it is unclear why.”
Other media figures have similarly indicated a fundamental misreading of what the conflict over Buckingham is about. This is at least partly due to media refusals to run explanations of one side of the argument. In this blog, I want to quickly set out some of the issues that media has not properly represented. In doing so, I will not discuss the allegations against Buckingham. For the sake of this blog (and ones that follow), readers can assume that Buckingham is totally innocent in relation to all allegations. Even with that starting premise, it should be clear that Baird’s framing fundamentally misstates the actual issues. I will deal with these in turn. The issues are 1) the public insinuations about Ella Buckland 2)the investigation and its findings 3) Defamation 4) Jenny’s speech.
In this part, I will address the public insinuations about Ella.
THE PUBLIC INSINUATIONS ABOUT ELLA
There is a kind of general convention in the last few years. Virtually no public figure responds to allegations of sexual assault and harassment by publicly criticising their accuser. The only exception I can think of is Donald Trump.
There are some public figures who have publicly disputed allegations, saying that they are false. But it is hard to think of any who have responded by making claims or insinuations that reflect negatively on their accuser.
Now consider some of the headlines about Ella Buckland after her allegations were publicised:
Or this
Or this
Note: these are the headlines and lead paragraphs in stories in national publications. And this has been a constant feature of media coverage. For example, here’s the Australian on 13 November where it wasn’t in the headline:
As it happens, that individual story has been amended, so that the highlighted line is no longer there. But the rest of the media coverage? The headlines above are unchanged. The allegations are not treated as Ella’s version of events, which are false for some reason. They are factional.
Now why is this featured in just about all media coverage of stories relating to the allegations?
Buckingham himself doesn’t use language that explicitly says Ella is part of a factional conspiracy. His language, however, has been ambiguous, so that that is a possible reading of what he says. Another possible factor is his staffer, Max Phillips.
Earlier this year, Buckingham was pictured at an event making what appeared to be a cunnilingus gesture. Phillips emailed New Matilda (where I am a columnist) with something like a conditional apology from Buckingham. He then offered background:
Hi Chris, Background (not for attribution) the photo was taken of the winning trivia team at a Greens trivia night. Jeremy is giving a light-hearted up-yours and blowing a raspberry at the opposing teams. It was not intended as any kind of sexual gesture. Perhaps it is the camera angle that makes it look like something it is not. It was posted by one of the other members of the trivia team to a private Facebook but then taken and publicised by former Shoebridge staffer Lauren Gillin.
Shoebridge is currently the only elected representative in NSW who aligns with the Left of the Greens. The implication was that Gillin, as someone aligned with the left via her boss, had taken the opportunity for a factional attack on her rival. Not for attribution means the media was to run this line, but not attribute it to Buckingham and his camp.
The fact that Phillips responded to this controversy by implying it was a factional conspiracy against Buckingham doesn’t mean that this is what has happened with Ella. However, in that instance, Phillips offered background about the alleged underlying factional motivation for what happened, hoping that the media would run with it, hoping that he could do so without leaving fingerprints that it was the official angle and perspective of the Buckingham office.
That is one possible explanation. Yet let us suppose hypothetically that this was not what Buckingham’s office was doing. The allegations were first aired in August. If Buckingham and his staffers did not want to make this insinuation, and wanted to remove any ambiguity, they could easily have chosen to do so. They could’ve responded to the media coverage by stressing that they made no aspersions on Ella, did not regard her as a factional operative, and would hate if people wrongly construed their position in that way. They opted against doing so. The only exception I’m aware of — which hasn’t been publicised — is the story above being edited to remove the claim that Buckingham chalked up the allegations to factional politics.
Indeed, in an internal email sent to Greens Local Groups and their convenors, Buckingham wrote
In the fullness of disclosure to the SDC, I have been told that David Shoebridge met with the complainant around the time that her complaint was officially lodged, which was during the last preselection period. I understand David Shoebridge told the convenor Sylvia Hale ‘months ago’ about the complaint and to expect media interest.
Buckingham didn’t say what conclusions should be drawn from this. Yet certainly one reading could be that Shoebridge is somehow implicated in the complaint. He also says that the complaint was lodged during the preselection period, implying that there is something somehow suspicious in the timing.
When the investigation by WorkDynamic released a summary of its findings to Buckingham (it later released them to Ella — Ella first heard about the findings from Buckingham’s public comments), Buckingham issued a media release on his page. Note firstly the claim that it “CLEARS” Buckingham (which suggests a finding of innocence: the finding, according to the draft summary seems to have been more limited: “I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable person could conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that an incident/incidents of sexual harassment as defined by the legislation has occurred.”)
However, what came next was more troubling:
These were “false allegations” used by “certain people” to try to destroy Buckingham. This “politicisation” of these processes would prevent people with “genuine complaints” from coming forward. Those who “politicise complaints for political gain” should be ashamed. In those comments, Buckingham does not specifically name Ella. However, his comments are ambiguous. Was she in on the politicisation of the complaints process? Should she be ashamed? Did she abuse the complaints process? A reasonable person could read this and think that Ella was part of the factional conspiracy against Buckingham. This is also a reasonable reading of media reports in ABC, Australian and elsewhere.
Note also the conclusion of the media release. Buckingham announced he would pursue a “number of civil actions” to restore his reputation. That is, he is in the process of suing some of his critics for defamation. When Luke Foley made a similar threat, there was uproar and widespread public outrage. In the case of Buckingham, all of the backlash has come from within the Green NSW, and almost entirely within the party. The exception has been stories at New Matilda about some of the defamation threats to members.
Publicly criticising a woman who alleges sexual misconduct in national media is in and of itself a serious issue.
As New Matilda reported, on October 1 the National Council of the Australian Greens wrote to Greens NSW about Buckingham’s media statement. They alleged that his statement breached Greens sexual harassment policies against “victimisation or retaliation” against complainants.
They noted the media proliferation of the statement:
Their letter requested an apology from Buckingham.
On 13 November, they gave up
They tried to work constructively to resolve the issue of Buckingham’s public statements about Ella. They said they couldn’t resolve the issue, “due in part to Mr Buckingham’s ongoing behaviour”. So they say the most appropriate step is for Buckingham to stand aside. Remember: they originally just asked for him to apologise for his public statement. When this failed, they said he should step aside. And this is separate from the other media coverage sampled above, which has routinely suggested Ella is a factional operative.
Now, I generally don’t think it is worthwhile responding to the allegation against Ella. Yet it is worth noting how flimsy it is. Ella worked for the Greens from 2011–2. At the time, she worked for Jan Barham, aligned with the right of the party. Ella has not been a member of the party for several years. In the years after 2011, she disclosed her allegations about what happened to her to two members aligned with the right of the Greens NSW. One of those she says she told was Justin Field, a member of the NSW upper house (Legislative Council). She even has a photo of him at her house from 2015. According to Ella, Field did nothing.
Having tried twice to share her allegations, she tried a third time in 2018, in response to a public post about believing complainants by David Shoebridge, an MLC from the Left of the party. Shoebridge helped her navigate the process so that she could complain. That is the entire basis for the claim that Ella is a factional operative. It overwhelmingly relies on innuendo, because Ella isn’t a member of the Greens, isn’t involved in the Greens, when she was involved she was involved with people in Buckingham’s faction. Those who have supported disciplinary action against Buckingham span across much of the political spectrum of the Greens NSW, not just the left. Ella’s critics have never made a substantive case for Ella being a factional operative, because there is no case.
Since the allegations were published, there were calls for Buckingham to stand aside during the investigation. One such motion received the support of 65 percent of local groups in NSW. That is, it was not just the left who backed it. It was most of the Greens NSW. Buckingham was rescued by the right faction of the Greens, which loyally stood by him, and at first blocked discussion of the motions until most delegates walked out of the conference.
The right has claimed issues like procedural fairness were at stake in their defence of Buckingham. This is hard to believe. Take the case of Cate Faehrmann, currently an MLC, aligned with the right of the party, and one of Buckingham’s most staunch defenders. She voted against urgency at the conference (that is, she voted against even permitting discussion of the motions against Buckingham). She voted against every motion for temporary suspension of Buckingham.
A few weeks ago, Jenny Leong, the Member for Newtown, made some allegations against Buckingham in NSW Parliament. Faehrmann wrote in Fairfax
I urged my colleague Jenny Leong to make a complaint via formal party processes if she has new allegations following her speech in Parliament this week using parliamentary privilege. Should an investigation commence, I have asked Jeremy Buckingham to stand aside from formal duties while this takes place.
In fact, allegations were made against Buckingham, an investigation did commence, and Faehrmann voted against him standing aside from formal duties during that time. Why is her public stance different? Because most of the public has no idea about her actual record, and she has more access to the media as an elected politician with an office of staffers and volunteers than the original complainant, a single mother who took 7 years to come forward about her allegations.
So why would Faehrmann vote against Buckingham standing aside during an investigation, and then publicly say that she thinks he should do so if there were another investigation?
Because the right isn’t defending any real principles: this is purely factional. Buckingham is from the right of the party, and the right aggressively stands by and protects its own (and then cries out that everyone else is factional, like the classic pickpocket trick of getting caught and yelling out “thief, thief!”). Even this framing is a bit misleading — Tamara Smith, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (the lower house in NSW Parliament) — has called on Buckingham to stand down. Buckingham responded by leaking texts to Fairfax where Smith had tried to mollify him, by distancing herself from Jenny Leong’s speech in Parliament. Smith has stood by her call for Buckingham to stand down from the Legislative Council.
In her op ed, Faehrmann went on to imply that factionalism drove the other side:
The vast majority of the general public will never understand the power plays and manoeuvring that occur within a political party. Thank goodness for that. However, it’s safe to say that countless potential motives do exist to tear down another person, or to do irreparable damage to their reputation.
The unrelenting attacks against Jeremy Buckingham have revealed a deeply troubling side to the campaign for women’s voices and experiences to be trusted when it comes to allegations of sexual assault and violence against them by men.
Faehrmann doesn’t say Ella is a factional liar. She just says that there are countless potential motives to tear down another person. Is Ella one of those people? It’s left ambiguous. Just another politician with a major stage and platform, implying that a complainant shouldn’t be trusted. Indeed, trusting women’s voices and experiences has a “deeply troubling side”. This is where the right of the Greens NSW have gone. Whereas progressive responses to #metoo have tended to be along the lines of believe women, loyalty to Buckingham has legitimised public insinuations about complainants. This is not a trivial thing. If these allegations against Ella are allowed to stand, the message will be that women who make complaints in the Greens are fair game for negative headlines in the national media. Even if this were the only issue at stake, it would still be of great important to establish in the Greens that it is not okay to respond this way to a complainant. The fact that three months later, zero disciplinary action has been taken against Buckingham (or Faehrmann, or anyone) for these kinds of insinuations means that the Greens have already failed Ella in fundamental ways.
It can be compared to comparable stories in recent days. When the leader of the NSW ALP Luke Foley was accused of sexual misconduct, the party turned on him, he resigned, he was denounced publicly by his colleagues, and women publicly praised the bravery of his accuser, and said they believed her. No one claimed it was the factional move of his internal rivals.
When a Greens candidate in elections in Victoria was accused of sexual assault, he was ordered to stand down. His career as a politician appears to have ended.
Other contrasts can be drawn, but in neither case were any insinuations or aspersions cast on the character or motivations of the complainants. Those who have defended Buckingham have not offered any criticism in the instances of the Victorian Greens or NSW ALP. None of Buckingham’s defenders have said that these actions are inappropriate, that the accused are entitled to due process, natural justice, the presumption of innocence etc. In fact, Faehrmann responded by believing the accuser.
That is, there is a very basic issue at stake around Buckingham, entirely separate from whatever happened in 2011. Is it okay to make insinuations and critical comments about the character and motivations of a complainant? If it is not okay, then should the people who make those public statements be held accountable for them?
UPDATE: 30 November
Reminder: Max Phillips is the staffer of Jeremy Buckingham. As seen above, when news broke that Jeremy Buckingham made what appeared to be a cunnilingus gesture at a Greens event, Phillips tried to provide background that attributed the story to Shoebridge’s office. That is, he responded to allegations that Buckingham acted in a sexist way by claiming it was a factional conspiracy.
Has Phillips shaped any of the media coverage above behind the scenes in a similar way in relation to stories about Ella?
Well, he shared “A few things I know”. About Ella. Just a few things that he thinks ties her to Shoebridge. Just a few more insinuations about Ella and her allegations. From the person who does Buckingham’s media work.
