Wilson’s Goldstein Win: No Blueprint, Just Bad Faith

Reforming Campaigns: Curbing Misinformation, Postals, and Proxies

Parnell Palme McGuinness’ glowing take on Tim Wilson’s Goldstein victory as a “template” for crushing teal independents is a selective yarn (The Age, SMH, 1 June 2025). Her article, “How to beat the teals? The city Liberals now have a template,” hypes Wilson’s “coffee swarms” and focus groups as campaign brilliance, conveniently dodging the ethical rot and moral disengagement that tainted his 175-vote win, confirmed after a recount on 31 May 2025 (ABC News, 31 May 2025). As a right-wing commentator with Liberal ties via her firm Agenda C, McGuinness’ lazy journalism ignores the intimidation, misinformation and disinformation that scarred Goldstein’s electorate (SMH, 24 June 2023; The Age, 14 May 2025). Far from a blueprint, Wilson’s campaign, propped up by third-party proxies, is a warning the Liberal Party should heed.

A Campaign Fuelled by Division

Wilson’s two-year crusade to reclaim Goldstein from ‘teal’ community independent Zoe Daniel was dogged. After his 2022 loss, he hit the ground early, funding focus groups with personal debt and hosting community town halls (The Age, 7 May 2025). His postal vote strategy was a masterstroke, with 24,299 issued, 13,982 counted by 6 May, favouring him 64.5% to Daniel’s 35.5% (ABC News, 6 May 2025). On the surface, it was grassroots grit. But the campaign’s underbelly, marked by proxy-driven division, left Goldstein’s diverse community fractured.

On the ground, the atmosphere was toxic.

At Brighton’s pre-poll booths, Sarah, a 42-year-old mum, felt “cornered” by Repeal the Teal volunteers pushing baseless antisemitism claims against Daniel. “It wasn’t a chat, it was a lecture,” she said. Michael, a 65-year-old retiree from Sandringham, was rattled at a Bentleigh booth when Better Australia volunteers “shouted over” his questions about Daniel’s climate record, leaving him “unsettled” (X posts, May 2025).

The ABC 7.30 segment (28 May 2025) laid bare the worst: on polling day, 3 May, Daniel’s volunteers faced “abuse and bullying” at booths. Priya, a volunteer, saw Liberal supporters swap into Repeal the Teal shirts for “another shift” of harassment, calling it “orchestrated intimidation” (ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025). Tom, a 19-year-old first-time volunteer, was reduced to tears after “relentless heckling” at Elsternwick, saying, “I just wanted to help democracy” (The Age, 28 April 2025). Laura Tingle’s report highlighted “waves of intimidation” that left Daniel’s team shaken, with Wilson offering no condemnation (ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025).

Proxy Groups: Unaccountable and Unethical

Third-party proxies like Repeal the Teal, Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia, and the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (PBCC) were the campaign’s dark engine, backed by $5–10 million in spending (The Age, 10 May 2025). Wilson will deny this, of course, but the links are there, and his silence in accepting the bad actors who threatened Zoe’s volunteers and voters says it all. Repeal the Teal, led by conservative activist Harriet Warslow, ran forums smearing Daniel as antisemitic, exploiting Goldstein’s Jewish community (The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2025). Australians for Prosperity, tied to fossil fuel interests and chaired by Wilson’s bestie Jason Falinski, painted teals as anti-business, muddying Daniel’s climate record (SMH, 2024). Better Australia disrupted booths with loudspeakers and aggressive rhetoric, as seen in ABC 7.30 footage (ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025). The PBCC, granted access to Liberal voter data, made nearly 1 million calls, spreading falsehoods (The Age, 14 May 2025).

Moral Disengagement: Scoring the Campaign

Explanation: Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement theory explains how people justify unethical behaviour by disconnecting from their own moral standards. Instead of seeing their actions as wrong, they use psychological mechanisms to morally disengage, allowing them to act against their values without feeling guilt or shame.

Using Bandura’s eight mechanisms of moral disengagement: moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanisation, and attribution of blame, this campaign’s ethical conduct is assessed on transparency, democratic integrity, and alignment with voter priorities (e.g., climate, cost-of-living).

Scoring: Each mechanism is scored out of 100 (0 = complete disengagement, 100 = full moral engagement), with the overall score calculated as an average.

1. Moral Justification (Score: 40/100)
   Wilson framed his campaign as defending “community values” against Daniel’s perceived elitism, justifying aggressive tactics as necessary to reclaim Goldstein (The Age, 7 May 2025). Proxy groups, such as Repeal the Teal, claimed their antisemitism accusations protected cultural interests (The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2025). This rationale enabled divisive tactics, with Daniel describing the attacks as “soul-crushing” (The Age, 7 May 2025). Limited community engagement mitigates slightly.

2. Euphemistic Labelling (Score: 30/100)
   Proxy intimidation, such as the National Workers Alliance’s (NWA) booth disruptions, was labelled “free speech,” and postal vote diversion was termed “campaign support” (SMH, 3 May 2025; The Age, 14 May 2025). This sanitised harmful acts, leaving volunteers feeling unsafe (The Age, 28 April 2025).

3. Advantageous Comparison (Score: 40/100)
   Daniel was portrayed as “radical” or ineffective compared to Liberal stability, with proxies exaggerating her policy failures (ABC News, 1 May 2025). This distorted voter perceptions, demoralising Daniel’s team (ABC News, 1 May 2025). Some policy alignment with voter concerns adds minor credit.

4. Displacement of Responsibility (Score: 20/100)
   Wilson distanced himself from proxy actions, remaining silent on NWA disruptions and Repeal the Teal’s smears (The Age, 14 May 2025). This avoidance left volunteers facing unchecked harassment (The Age, 28 April 2025).

5. Diffusion of Responsibility (Score: 20/100)
   Multiple proxy groups diffused blame, allowing Wilson to claim independence (The Age, 14 May 2025). This enabled unchecked misinformation, with volunteers reporting daily abuse (X posts, May 2025).

6. Distortion of Consequences (Score: 30/100)
   Privacy breaches and booth disruptions were downplayed as routine (The Age, 14 May 2025; SMH, 3 May 2025). This minimised voter distrust, with 59% concerned about data security (YouGov, May 2025), and left Daniel’s team feeling complicit (The Age, 20 May 2022).

7. Dehumanisation (Score: 20/100)
   Daniel was labelled elitist or antisemitic, fostering hostility (The Age, 7 May 2025; The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2025). NWA’s abusive rhetoric at booths caused fear among volunteers (SMH, 3 May 2025).

8. Attribution of Blame (Score: 30/100)
   Wilson claimed Daniel’s 2022 win was a voter “error,” invalidating her mandate (The Age, 7 May 2025). This undermined democratic choice, contributing to volunteer burnout (The Age, 7 May 2025).

Overall Moral Engagement Score: 29/100
The average score (40+30+40+20+20+30+20+30)/8 ≈ 29 reflects Wilson’s limited community engagement through house meetings and restrained result comments (SMH, 6 May 2025), overshadowed by reliance on postal vote diversion, proxy misinformation, and silence on far-right disruptions.

Far from a “blue tsunami,” the 175-vote margin underscores the campaign’s ethical compromises (ABC News, 31 May 2025). Proxy groups, notably Repeal the Teal (15/100) and NWA (10/100), score lower due to inflammatory tactics (SMH, 3 May 2025).

These tactics are ethically bankrupt.

Volunteers like Priya and Tom faced daily abuse, with one describing the “soul-crushing” antisemitism smears (The Age, 7 May 2025). Voter trust tanked with 59% worried about data privacy post-PBCC (YouGov, May 2025).

Legal concerns hover, though no laws were clearly breached. Diverting postal votes to Liberal offices exploits a Privacy Act loophole (The Age, 20 May 2022). Opaque proxy funding may test Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 disclosure rules (The Age, 14 May 2025). Repeal the Teal’s smears could invite Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) claims, but Wilson’s silence shields him (The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2025). Better Australia’s booth disruptions raise questions about Electoral Act s 325 violations (ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025).

McGuinness’ Lazy Journalism

McGuinness’ article is selective at best, lazy at worst. She touts Wilson’s “common sense” without mentioning proxy groups or the intimidation aired on ABC 7.30 (The Age, 1 June 2025; ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025). Her claim that Wilson “beat [Daniel] by Christmas 2024” ignores the razor-thin margin and recount (ABC News, 31 May 2025). By omitting Daniel’s perspective and the “moral injury” her team endured, McGuinness silences half the story (The Age, 28 April 2025). Her Liberal ties via Agenda C raise questions about undisclosed conflicts (SMH, 24 June 2023). This isn’t journalism, it’s a cheer squad for a campaign that left voters like Sarah “disgusted” (The Age, 14 May 2025).

A Flawed Blueprint for Liberals

The Liberal Party’s 2025 rout -43 seats, four Melbourne losses (The Age, 14 May 2025- shows why Wilson’s campaign is no model. Its $5–10 million price tag for a 175-vote win is hardly the “blue tsunami” Wilson bragged about (The Guardian, 18 May 2025). Proxy-driven division alienated moderates, with one Liberal voter saying, “This isn’t my party” (The Age, 14 May 2025). If the Liberals embrace this, they’re treating voters like mugs, risking a 2028 wipeout.

Reforming Campaigns: Curbing Misinformation, Postals, and Proxies

Third-party proxies, unchecked misinformation, and postal vote loopholes can’t dodge accountability. Wilson’s campaign exposes electoral gaps needing robust reform:

• Truth in Political Advertising Laws: South Australia’s fact-checking model, with fines up to $25,000 for repeat offenders, could penalise misinformation like PBCC’s claims. A federal body, independent of the AEC, would restore trust (AEC, May 2025; The Age, 18 April 2025).

• Third-Party Spending Caps: Limiting proxy budgets to $500,000 per electorate and requiring real-time donor disclosure would expose groups like Australians for Prosperity. Criminal penalties for non-compliance could deter dark money (The Age, 10 May 2025). Personally, I would like to seem them banned altogether.

• Privacy Act Amendments: Closing loopholes allowing political data sharing, as seen with PBCC’s access, would protect voters. Encryption mandates for voter data could address 59% voter concern (YouGov, May 2025; The Age, 14 May 2025).

• Postal Vote Safeguards: Requiring AEC-only handling of postal votes would end diversions to party offices. Audits of postal vote chains could ensure integrity (The Age, 20 May 2022). This is a biggie.

• AEC Enforcement Powers: On-the-spot fines for booth disruptions, as with Better Australia, and rapid-response teams at polling stations would deter intimidation (SMH, 3 May 2025; ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025).

• Proxy Registration System: Mandating AEC registration for third-party groups, disclosing leadership and funding, would unmask fronts like Repeal the Teal. Bans on unregistered campaigning could enforce compliance.

Citizens can drive change via AEC petitions, town halls, Change.org and other social media campaigns with verified sources (The Age, 18 April 2025). Amplifying voices like Sarah, Michael, Priya, and Tom should spur local action.

Conclusion: No Victory in Division

Wilson’s Goldstein win is no template: it’s a red flag.

McGuinness’s lazy journalism may cheer his hustle, but it buries the ethical rot and deep moral disengagement exposed by ABC 7.30 and voters like Sarah, Michael, Priya, and Tom (ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025). Wilson’s silence on proxy intimidation, despite his denials, speaks louder than words. The Liberal Party must ditch this cynicism or prove they’re utterly on the nose.

Australia’s democracy demands deep reform now, well before 2028.

Onward we press

Sources:

• The Age, 7 May, 10 May, 14 May, 18 April, 28 April, 1 June 2025; 20 May 2022

• ABC News, 1 May, 6 May, 31 May 2025

• ABC 7.30, 28 May 2025

• SMH, 3 May, 1 June 2025; 2024; 24 June 2023

• The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2025

• The Guardian, 18 May 2025

• YouGov, May 2025

• Team Zoe volunteer account, May 2025

• X posts, May 2025

• AEC, May 2025

• Inside Story, 24 April 2025

• ABC News, 30 April 2025

Brief Explanation of Moral Disengagement

Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement theory explains how people justify unethical behaviour by disconnecting from their own moral standards. Instead of seeing their actions as wrong, they use psychological mechanisms to morally disengage, allowing them to act against their values without feeling guilt or shame.

Bandura identified eight mechanisms of moral disengagement:

1. Moral Justification – Framing harmful actions as serving a noble purpose (e.g., “It’s for the greater good”).

2. Euphemistic Language – Using sanitised language to make harmful acts sound benign (e.g., calling torture “enhanced interrogation”).

3. Advantageous Comparison – Comparing one’s actions to worse behavior to downplay their severity.

4. Displacement of Responsibility – Blaming authority figures for one’s actions (e.g., “I was just following orders”).

5. Diffusion of Responsibility – Spreading responsibility across a group (e.g., “Everyone else was doing it”).

6. Disregarding or Distorting Consequences – Minimising or ignoring the harm caused.

7. Dehumanisation – Viewing victims as less than human or deserving of mistreatment.

8. Attribution of Blame – Blaming victims for their own suffering.

These mechanisms help explain how ordinary people can commit unethical acts while maintaining a positive self-image.