A Reflective Assessment of Goldstein’s MPs Through the Lens of Moral Disengagement

Election 2025 – Ethical Reflections on Our MPs - past and present- and Democratic Duty

As we wait with anticipation for the final count in the 2025 Australian federal election, the Goldstein community stands at a crossroads. Our electorate—a vibrant tapestry of diversity has endured a bruising campaign. With Liberal candidate Tim Wilson holding a fragile 734-vote lead over ‘teal’ community independent incumbent Zoe Daniel, and approximately 10,000 postal, absent, and declaration votes yet to be tallied (Australian Electoral Commission, 6 May 2025), the outcome remains uncertain. The campaign’s intensity, including some ethically challenging tactics, has tested our shared values of integrity, climate action, equity, and social cohesion. As a Goldstein resident, I feel the weight of this moment and the hope for a representative who truly serves our community.

This reflection is my way to process what has happened and to remind myself, and anyone else who is interested, about what is at stake in our democracy and how we need to remain ever vigilant.

Using the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement outlined by Albert Bandura and extended by Steve Davies, I assess the ethical conduct of Goldstein’s Members of Parliament (MPs)—Ian Macphee, David Kemp, Andrew Robb, Tim Wilson, and Zoe Daniel—based on their public records. This framework, applied in the public interest to inform community dialogue, offers a transparent lens to understand how our MPs have aligned with Goldstein’s priorities, and what a Wilson or Daniel victory could mean for our future. It’s a heartfelt call for all of us, wherever we are, to stay engaged and protect the values that bind us.

The Moral Disengagement Framework

Albert Bandura (1925–2021), a pioneering psychologist, developed the theory of moral disengagement to explain how individuals rationalise unethical actions to preserve their self-image (Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves, 2016). Australian Moral Engagement Researcher, Steve Davies, in The Moral Disengagement Handbook (2023), extends Bandura’s seven mechanisms by separating dehumanisation and attribution of blame, creating eight mechanisms tailored to systemic ethical failures, such as Australia’s Robodebt scandal. This framework helps citizens evaluate politicians’ accountability.

The eight mechanisms are:

• Moral Justification: Framing actions as serving a greater good (e.g., cuts for “economic stability”).

• Euphemistic Labelling: Sanitising behaviour with neutral terms (e.g., reductions as “reforms”).

• Advantageous Comparison: Justifying actions by comparing to worse alternatives (e.g., “our policies beat the opposition’s”).

• Displacement of Responsibility: Blaming external forces (e.g., “I followed party orders”).

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Hiding behind collective decisions (e.g., “the cabinet decided”).

• Disregard or Distortion of Consequences: Minimising harm caused (e.g., downplaying environmental impacts).

• Dehumanisation: Demonising opponents (e.g., calling critics “radicals”).

• Attribution of Blame: Blaming victims or others for consequences (e.g., “voters didn’t demand change”).

Using public records from TheyVoteForYou.org.au, Hansard, AEC, and media sources such as the ABC, The Guardian, and social media posts, I score each MP’s moral engagement (High, Moderate, Low) based on their use or avoidance of these mechanisms, reflecting their alignment with Goldstein’s priorities: integrity, climate action, equity, economic prosperity, and social cohesion. These scores are based on Davies’ framework and cited sources, while not definitive judgments, they offer a window into the intentions and actions of our MPs when it comes to community representation and outcomes that affect our communities, in this case Goldstein.

Assessment of Goldstein’s MPs - past & present

Ian Macphee (1974–1990, Liberal)

Record: As Immigration Minister (1979–1982), Macphee advanced multiculturalism and resettled Vietnamese refugees (ABC, 15 March 1980). He championed Aboriginal rights, women’s equality, and opposed economic rationalism, losing pre-selection in 1989 for his principles (Hansard, 20 September 1989). His work strengthened Goldstein’s diverse community.

Moral Disengagement Analysis:

• Moral Justification: Grounded policies in human rights, not moral superiority.

• Euphemistic Labelling: Used clear terms like “refugee resettlement.”

• Advantageous Comparison: Focused on policy merits, not comparisons.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Took personal accountability, defying party pressures e.g., crossed the floor to support the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Acted independently, not hiding behind collectives.

• Disregard of Consequences: Emphasised long-term benefits of inclusion.

• Dehumanisation: Promoted unity, avoiding divisive rhetoric.

• Attribution of Blame: Advocated for marginalised groups, not blaming them.

Score: High Moral Engagement. Based on Davies’ framework, Macphee’s principled leadership reflects Goldstein’s values of equity and cohesion, offering a model for ethical representation.

David Kemp (1990–2004, Liberal)

Record: As Education Minister (1997–2001), Kemp introduced reforms increasing student debt, and as Environment Minister (2001–2004), he oversaw policies rejecting the Kyoto Protocol (Hansard, 12 November 1997; The Guardian, 7 June 2002). He described these as economic necessities in speeches, prioritising fiscal goals.

Moral Disengagement Analysis:

• Moral Justification: Presented debt hikes and Kyoto rejection as economic imperatives.

• Euphemistic Labelling: Used “flexibility” for deregulation, per Hansard (12 November 1997).

• Advantageous Comparison: Defended reforms by comparing to worse economic scenarios.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Attributed decisions to market or global pressures.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Relied on cabinet consensus, per speeches.

• Disregard of Consequences: May have minimised student debt and environmental impacts.

• Dehumanisation: Avoided demonisation, though critics were called “idealists.”

• Attribution of Blame: Blamed economic conditions, not victims.

Score: Moderate Moral Engagement. Based on Davies’ framework, Kemp’s framing as reflecting moral disengagement, aligning with systemic ethical critiques, but his restraint in dehumanisation limits concerns. His record partially supports Goldstein’s priorities but not climate action.

Andrew Robb (2004–2016, Liberal)

Record: As Trade Minister (2013–2016), Robb negotiated the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which faced criticism for sidelining labour and environmental protections (The Guardian, 17 June 2015). His post-parliamentary consulting for Chinese-linked firms raised conflict-of-interest concerns (ABC, 10 April 2017).

Moral Disengagement Analysis:

• Moral Justification: Presented FTA as an economic win, per speeches.

• Euphemistic Labelling: Used “market access” to describe trade impacts.

• Advantageous Comparison: Compared FTA to protectionist alternatives.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Attributed concessions to global competition.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Cited cabinet support for FTA, per Hansard (20 October 2015).

• Disregard of Consequences: May have minimised job losses and environmental impacts.

• Dehumanisation: Avoided demonisation, though unions were called obstructive.

• Attribution of Blame: Suggested unions resisted “progress,” per speeches.

Score: Low-Moderate Moral Engagement. Based on Davies’ framework, Robb’s trade focus and post-MP consulting, which raised concerns about public interest alignment, reflect moral disengagement. His record diverges from Goldstein’s equity and climate priorities.

Tim Wilson (2016–2022, Liberal; 2025 Candidate)

Record: As a backbencher, Wilson did not oppose Robodebt (Hansard, 15 March 2017) and initially championed renewables, notably wind farms, before shifting to endorse Liberal climate targets and, in 2025, advocating for nuclear energy as a primary solution (IPA report, 2016; speech, 10 November 2020; The Australian, 20 April 2025). He supported tax cuts and franking credit policies benefiting higher-income earners and self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) (The Canberra Times, 2 April 2025). In 2025, his campaign preferenced One Nation, despite his 2019 condemnation of their views (ABC, 4 May 2025), skipped a climate debate (ABC, 2 May 2025), and endorsed the Coalition’s policy allowing first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from superannuation for deposits, which critics argue could inflate property prices (The Guardian, 15 January 2025). His campaign materials described critics as “socialist” and used terms like “teal elites,” which some perceived as polarising (The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025).

Moral Disengagement Analysis:

• Moral Justification: Presented tax cuts and franking credits as promoting “economic freedom” (The Canberra Times, 2 April 2025), the One Nation deal as an electoral necessity (ABC, 4 May 2025), and nuclear energy as a “pragmatic” climate solution (The Australian, 20 April 2025), framing policies as serving broader societal benefits despite his earlier support for wind farms.

• Euphemistic Labelling: Used “empowerment” for welfare cuts and “home ownership opportunity” for superannuation withdrawals, per campaign speeches, potentially softening impacts on housing affordability (The Guardian, 15 January 2025).

• Advantageous Comparison: Described critics as “socialist” to position his approach as economically superior, per campaign materials (The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025).

• Displacement of Responsibility: Attributed climate inaction, including his nuclear pivot, to market constraints and global trends, per speeches (10 November 2020; The Australian, 20 April 2025).

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Linked Robodebt support to party consensus, per Hansard (15 March 2017), and framed franking credit and nuclear policies as Coalition-driven (The Canberra Times, 2 April 2025; The Australian, 20 April 2025).

• Disregard or Distortion of Consequences: May have minimised the impact of skipping the climate debate (ABC, 2 May 2025), the potential for superannuation withdrawals to drive up property prices (The Guardian, 15 January 2025), and the shift to nuclear energy, which critics argue delays renewable investment critical to Goldstein’s climate mandate (The Guardian, 25 April 2025).

• Dehumanisation: Used terms like “teal elites” and other derogatory terms in campaign materials, incorrectly labelling opponents to sow disinformation leading to voter confusion and anger, which some interpreted as dismissing opponents’ concerns (The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025) and real intentions, aligning with Davies’ mechanism of demonising adversaries to discredit them.

• Attribution of Blame: Suggested critics of his campaign tactics, such as environmental advocates, misunderstood economic priorities, per campaign materials (The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025), potentially shifting responsibility for policy disputes onto opponents.

Score: Low Moral Engagement. Applying Davies’ framework, Wilson’s actions across his tenure and 2025 campaign reflect significant moral disengagement, raising concerns about alignment with Goldstein’s priorities of integrity, climate action, equity, cost-of-living measures, and cohesion. His support for franking credits, which critics argue benefits wealthier taxpayers (Forbes, 28 October 2024), superannuation withdrawals for housing, which may exacerbate affordability issues (The Guardian, 15 January 2025), and his shift from championing wind farms to nuclear energy, which may delay renewables (The Guardian, 25 April 2025), highlight tensions with equitable and sustainable policy outcomes.

Zoe Daniel (2022–present, Independent)

Since her election as Goldstein’s Independent MP in 2022, Zoe Daniel has established a strong record of advocating for community-driven priorities. She has been a vocal proponent of a federal anti-corruption commission, supporting the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 and pushing for amendments to strengthen whistleblower protections (Hansard, 30 November 2022). On climate action, she introduced motions in Parliament to accelerate renewable energy adoption and bolster Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, aligning with Goldstein’s community independent mandate (Hansard, 15 September 2022). Her collaboration with the Bayside Climate Crisis Action Group to promote local solar and wind projects has empowered grassroots sustainability efforts (The Age, 10 November 2023).

Daniel’s commitment to community cohesion is evident in her regular town halls, local events, and social media engagement (@ZoeDanielMP, 10 April 2025), which prioritise inclusive dialogue across Goldstein’s diverse demographics, from Brighton’s affluent residents to Bentleigh’s working families. She has supported multicultural festivals in Sandringham, fostering unity and celebrating cultural diversity (Bayside News, 15 February 2024). On equity, Daniel has championed policies to address cost-of-living pressures, voting to protect fair wage increases and improve childcare affordability (TheyVoteForYou.org.au, 20 March 2023). Her town hall discussions have emphasised targeted relief for low-income households and small businesses, particularly in Bentleigh (town hall records, 5 March 2025).

Beyond these priorities, Daniel has advocated for gender equality, co-sponsoring legislation to mandate workplace gender equity reporting (Hansard, 8 March 2023), and mental health, securing funding for local mental health services in Goldstein through crossbench negotiations (The Guardian, 12 June 2024). Her delay in conceding the 2025 election, pending the final vote count, reflects respect for the democratic process and her commitment to transparency (ABC, 6 May 2025). These actions demonstrate her dedication to Goldstein’s values and her ability to deliver tangible outcomes as an independent voice.

Moral Disengagement Analysis:

• Moral Justification: Frames policies as ethical necessities (e.g., climate action).

• Euphemistic Labelling: Uses direct terms like “climate crisis.”

• Advantageous Comparison: Focuses on policy merits, not dismissing opponents.

• Displacement of Responsibility: Takes personal accountability, unbound by party.

• Diffusion of Responsibility: Engages directly with constituents.

• Disregard of Consequences: Highlights harms of inaction.

• Dehumanisation: Promotes unity, avoiding divisive rhetoric.

• Attribution of Blame: Focuses on solutions, not blaming others.

Score: High Moral Engagement. Based on Davies’ framework, Daniel’s transparency and commitment embody Goldstein’s priorities, resisting moral disengagement..

Scorecard: Goldstein’s MPs

Reflective Insights

This reflection, rooted in my connection to Goldstein’s community, reveals a spectrum of ethical conduct among our MPs. Ian Macphee and Zoe Daniel, with high moral engagement, resisted rationalisations to prioritise inclusion, integrity, and sustainability. Macphee’s refugee advocacy and Daniel’s push for climate action, equality, cost-of-living and anti-corruption measures reflect our 2022 and 2025 community indepedent mandate, inspiring hope for a united community. Their records show what’s possible when MPs serve the public good.

David Kemp and Andrew Robb, with moderate to low-moderate moral engagement, used mechanisms like moral justification and euphemistic labelling in policies like student debt increases and trade agreements. Kemp’s restraint in dehumanisation softens his lapses, but Robb’s post-MP consulting, which raised concerns about public interest alignment (ABC, 10 April 2017), diverges from Goldstein’s priorities, echoing Davies’ systemic critiques.

Tim Wilson’s low moral engagement raises significant concerns, particularly as a 2025 candidate. His use of mechanisms like moral justification (e.g., franking credits as “economic freedom,” The Canberra Times, 2 April 2025; nuclear energy as “pragmatic,” The Australian, 20 April 2025), disregard of consequences (e.g., superannuation withdrawals potentially inflating housing costs, The Guardian, 15 January 2025), and dehumanisation (e.g., “teal elites,” The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025) suggests challenges in aligning with Goldstein’s values. His 2025 tactics, such as preferencing One Nation (ABC, 4 May 2025), skipping community and climate debates, and shifting from wind farm advocacy to nuclear energy (The Australian, 20 April 2025), reflect potential moral disengagement, per Davies’ framework, underscoring the need for vigilance.

The 2025 campaign has tested our community’s spirit. Some tactics have strained cohesion, while Daniel’s engagement has reinforced our values. As we stay connected in support of each other, share stories, and await the AEC’s verdict, this reflection urges us to stay vigilant, keeping our democracy’s heart strong.

Implications for Goldstein’s Future

With 10,000 votes uncounted as I write this article, Goldstein’s future hangs in the balance. A Tim Wilson victory, based on Davies’ framework and this assessment, could pose challenges:

• Climate Action: His absence from a climate debate, past renewable scepticism (The Guardian, 12 July 2018), and shift from championing wind farms to advocating nuclear energy (The Australian, 20 April 2025) may not fully align with our teal mandate for rapid renewable energy adoption, as critics argue nuclear delays immediate emissions reductions (The Guardian, 25 April 2025).

• Integrity: The One Nation deal and Robodebt stance (Hansard, 15 March 2017) raise accountability questions.

• Community Cohesion: Rhetoric perceived by some as polarising (The Canberra Times, 3 May 2025) could strain diversity.

• Equity: Policies like franking credits and superannuation withdrawals may prioritise wealthier groups over our community’s cost-of-living needs (Forbes, 28 October 2024; The Guardian, 15 January 2025).

A Zoe Daniel victory would likely sustain and build upon her demonstrated alignment with Goldstein’s priorities, offering insight into her future contributions based on her substantive record:

• Climate Action: Daniel has been a vocal advocate for ambitious emissions reductions, introducing motions in Parliament to accelerate renewable energy adoption and strengthen 2030 targets (Hansard, 15 September 2022). Her collaboration with community groups like the Bayside Climate Crisis Action Group to promote local solar and wind projects (The Age, 10 November 2023) demonstrates a commitment to grassroots climate solutions. In the future, she is likely to push for policies that prioritise renewable energy infrastructure and coastal protection measures critical to Goldstein’s bayside communities, ensuring alignment with our teal mandate for urgent climate action.

• Integrity: Daniel has consistently championed a federal anti-corruption commission, delivering speeches that call for robust transparency and accountability mechanisms (speeches, 10 October 2022). Her support for the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, including amendments to enhance whistleblower protections (Hansard, 30 November 2022), reflects her dedication to ethical governance. Moving forward, she is poised to advocate for stronger anti-corruption safeguards and parliamentary reforms, fostering trust in public institutions and serving Goldstein’s demand for integrity.

• Community Cohesion: Through regular town halls, in community and socal media engagement, Daniel has fostered inclusive dialogue, addressing diverse concerns from Brighton’s affluent residents to Bentleigh’s working families. Her leadership in supporting community initiatives, such as multicultural festivals in Sandringham (Bayside News, 15 February 2024), promotes unity across Goldstein’s diverse demographics. In the future, she is likely to continue building bridges through accessible forums and policies that celebrate diversity, strengthening our social fabric.

• Equity: Daniel’s town hall discussions have highlighted balanced policies addressing cost-of-living pressures, such as advocating for targeted relief for low-income households and small businesses in Bentleigh (town hall records, 5 March 2025). Her votes to protect fair wage increases and improve childcare affordability (TheyVoteForYou.org.au, 20 March 2023) show a commitment to economic fairness. Looking ahead, she is likely to champion equitable policies that support vulnerable residents, such as enhanced social services and affordable housing initiatives, ensuring Goldstein’s prosperity is shared across all communities.

A Call to Vigilance

As Goldstein residents, we share a love for our community and a commitment to its values. This reflection, grounded in Bandura and Davies’ framework, reminds us what’s at stake in our democracy and why we must remain vigilant. I invite my fellow residents to:

• Stay Curious: Explore your MP’s record using TheyVoteForYou.org.au, Hansard, and campaign materials.

• Connect with Community: Join town halls, share stories via local media, and engage with groups like Active Democracy Australia.

• Champion Our Values: Support campaigns for anti-corruption and climate action, per the Australian Democracy Network.

• Look to 2028: Build momentum to elect MPs who reflect our priorities, inspired by Goldstein’s teal surge.

Goldstein’s residents deserve an MP who embodies our heart—integrity, unity, and care for our planet.

As we await the AEC’s verdict, let us reflect on our past with hope, stay vigilant, and shape a thriving inclusive future.

Together, by holding our MPs to account around the country and embracing democracy as a participatory sport, we can inspire every electorate across Australia to shape a future that reflects our shared values.

Onward we press

Resources

• ABC News (4 May 2025, 2 May 2025, 6 May 2025, 10 April 2017, 15 March 1980).

• The Guardian (7 June 2002, 17 June 2015, 12 July 2018, 15 January 2025, 25 April 2025).

• The Canberra Times (2 April 2025, 3 May 2025).

• The Australian (20 April 2025).

• Forbes (28 October 2024).

• Hansard (12 November 1997, 20 September 1989, 15 March 2017, 20 October 2015, 15 September 2022, 30 November 2022).

• X post (@ZoeDanielMP, 10 April 2025).

• Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves.

• Davies, S. (2023). The Moral Disengagement Handbook.