We were wrong

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young says a deal was struck to to force a vote on her same-sex marriage bill, but that it was between Labor and the Coalition and not her party.

The Marriage Equality (Amendment) bill was voted down after only 30 minutes of debate and there was widespread speculation a deal had been done to force the proposal to a vote.

The senator finally agreed to talk after Sydney Star Observer last week published claims substantiated by multiple sources that the party had struck the deal to force the vote.

Hanson-Young said the Greens had only three opportunities a year to have private members bills.

“I pushed in my party room that I was to have the February spot, because we didn’t know if we would be allocated another one before the next election,” Hanson-Young said.

“Private senators time happens on Thursday afternoon and can happen any time before but no later than 4.30 as a general rule.

“Our private members time was to be allocated that afternoon [so] I came out quite strongly in the week leading up to make people know that was what I was intending to use that time for, I could predict both major parties would not want to discuss this issue.

“I was fearful that if I just brought forward the bill … there would be a movement of the agenda, an agreement of the major parties to squash that bill coming forward because it’s controversial and obviously they don’t want to deal with that.”
Hanson-Young said the issue became too publicised for the major parties to simply block discussion.

“What ended up happening on Thursday [was] both major parties realising that I had been so public in saying this bill was going to be discussed that they couldn’t quietly squash it and remove it from the agenda … so they gave us as limited time as possible — it ended up being just over half an hour, and they brought it on straight away once they had come to the agreement,” she said.

“Because neither of the major parties, particularly the Government, were prepared to put forward more than one speaker, it did only happen within that short amount of time and the vote was called before the normal 4.30 cut-off.

“In the lead-up to all of this, I had been saying … that there are members on both sides of the major parties who obviously want to be able to speak out on this issue but don’t feel they have the ability to because they’re told to toe the party line.

“So the press conference Senator Brown and I had on Thursday morning, that was the intent, that we will be pushing for this bill to come on to the agenda today, and we hope both major parties allow a conscience vote on the matter.

“Of course they didn’t want to do that, so the best way for them to deal with that was to give us as little time as possible and ram it through — I was given five minutes notice, or not even, that I was going to have to speak to the bill and push it through.”

Just answer the question

Andrew Potts

Point blank questions require point blank answers.
The role of GLBT media is to answer the concerns of our readers — but how are we supposed to do that when vital information is withheld by those being asked the questions?
On Thursday morning Greens senator Bob Brown told media he’d been trying to get the Government to agree to a vote on the Marriage Equality (Amendment) Bill without success and feared they would filibuster.
Debate on the bill began earlier than expected. Twenty minutes into it, the Deputy President of the Senate announced, “I omitted to say earlier … that an agreement had been reached between parties concerned on speaking times”.
The Greens raised no complaints, and the bill was voted on, as Senator Brown had wanted.
Looking at these events from the outside, people could be forgiven for wondering if the Greens had made arrangements to secure a vote in exchange for not kicking up a fuss about speaking times.
Sydney Star Observer was contacted by a number of people with this concern and decided to investigate, contacting the offices of Senator Brown and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
When we called after the debate, Hanson-Young’s press secretary, Andrew McGarry, didn’t know anything and said he was as surprised as anyone by the vote, so we left a message for the senator to contact us, specifically to clarify whether a deal had been done.
We then called Brown’s office and emailed a list of questions for him to answer.
His office directed us back to Hanson-Young for comment, and with those questions forwarded, we were provided with a statement from her.
All we needed was a simple ‘NO’ to end speculation.
This is what we got instead: “In general, timing for debate of private members bills is extremely limited. The Greens have been pushing for more time to debate private members bills like this one.”
If you can find a denial there, we’d like to borrow your glasses. As a result the Greens were left looking decidedly fishy.
Had we been supplied with that one simple word, it would have been a vastly different article in last week’s paper.
We have been willing to write this incident off as a failure in communication, but the Greens will not concede any error, stating that their small numbers preclude them from making demands on the Senate. We agree that is the case, but it is entirely possible for parties to come to arrangements outside the Senate.
Hanson-Young said if we found her answer unsatisfactory we should have continued to put the question to her until we were satisfied, but it is not our job to coax politicians, no matter how friendly, into giving us the answers we might like to hear.
She claims McGarry told us there was no deal, and so there was no need for a denial in her statement. Our notes say otherwise, and how he could have answered that question unanticipated without checking with someone is beyond us.
Finally she has accused us of falling victim to Labor Party stooges.
In fact we were not the only ones or even the first to bring these questions to a public forum — Tasmanian activist Rodney Croome aired the same concerns on his blog the night of the debate, though he has since reworded these.
This week we bring you the full story, from the lips of Senator Hanson-Young. We only wish the Greens’ denial had come sooner.

You May Also Like

26 responses to “We were wrong”

  1. The above feedback is not really about whether the Greens as a party support the gay community or not. It’s really about the journalism and the article that was written.

    It’s my opinion that more rigor should have been taken before the decision was made to publish the article about the Greens selling us out. Thats my feedback.

    I am a swinging voter and have voted for many parties over the years. At this point in my life equality rights and same sex marriage are the number one most important policital topic for me. Naturally, Greens get my vote because they are the only party who is doing anything in this space.

    Dave thank you for sharing your nice story above. Good to know.

  2. Peter: Conspiracy Theories about an army of Greens and Spin Doctors. What a load of bullshit. Blaming us that the Greens got a big GOING OVER by our press that is there to support is a slur on all of us.

    The Greens have earned the community respect by doing years of hard work for people like myself , and my partner. Ours was a story published in the Melbourne Star Observer at the time. Basically a Federal Award for Doctors requested a Marriage Certificate if Doctors partners were to have accommodation while on compulsory rotations to remote country hospitals. These rotations can involve 6months work in country areas. We were are told we had to stay at a hotel as we were homosexual and could have the hospital rented houses for doctors unless we could produce a Marriage Certificate as the award said. This was legal to do this as it was a Federal Award. The AMA did not help and said it was an “oversight” in the Award and they would look at changing it in three years time.

    We ended up not being financially penalised as Labor and Liberal wanted us to be for being homosexual. Both Party’s were monsters to us simply because we were gay. The Greens stepped in and helped. They got an amendment to the Award. They wrote a letters and raised the issue backing people into corners, the stood up for us. We wrote to the Labor and Liberal members and we got responses such as “Doctors get paid a lot so get over it”. My partner was a doctor in training at the time. At times he was the only doctor in emergency in towns in the middle of know where. Rather than look at this the Labor Party and the Liberal Party chose hate.

    The Greens did not seek to publish what they did so we did it for them. I expect my gay press not to jump the gun and assume the worst with the Greens. They are the only party that supports an end to all discrimination against us and actually does real things about it. Not just talk. The Greens as you have seen from people supporting them here earned the respect of our great community. Federal Liberal and Labor have simply not done enough for our community.

  3. “No doubt the Greens will be reviewing these comments to gauge community feedback on the article.”

    Great! Note this: Well said, Peter. A blinding burst of honesty and clarity in a thread of shameful spin.
    And well done SSO for not buckling under to a mob of hypocrites demanding that a political party should be beyond criticism because they ‘love teh gays.’You earn my vote you don’t get it automatically and ordering me to support you unconditionally – because I’m a poof – is a sure-fire way of not getting it.

  4. Does a leopard change its spots?
    Do we still love Andrew Potts?
    Do we learn from mistakes: lots?
    Can we trust you: tell us what’s
    Cold and whats hot Goldilocks?
    Be at peace and join the dots
    With and not against
    Your readers’ lots

    Blessings
    Thomas Saint

  5. What a vicious bunch of fools most of you are. A good friend once told me the gays would eat themselves – and it seems here they are spot on.

    As a mainstream reporter of almost 20 years I have sat back and watched this ridiculous tirade or abuse at SSO with interest.

    And, at the risk of opening myself up to abuse from what are clearly a number of members of the Greens too gutless to declare their interest in the story, I would add the following.

    It is clear to me SSO went to press with the information they had at hand. Far from just believing what they were told, they put questions about the deal not only to Hanson-Young, but also to Bob Brown.

    As is the case with politicians, they failed to answer the question – adding further suspicion to an already suspicious set of circumstances.

    After – and I stress AFTER – SSO had the balls to publish what it knew, the Greens sharpened their claws and rallied the troops to mount an all-out attack on the paper.

    What is obvious to me is that had the Greens spin doctors not just brushed the paper’s questions aside with a flimsy – thought politically typical – motherhood statement, the initial story would have been very difficult.

    What I find most disgusting here is the hypocrisy.

    You expect *EXPECT* SSO to do its job, ask the hard questions and push for the truth – yet when they do and you don’t like what you read, you all turn against the only paper that has ever served our interests like a pack of vultures.

    Sydney already has one dull as dishwater twinkie mag that does little more than feed off the coat-tails of one of the best and most respected gay and lesbian publications in the world.

    Do you really want another one? Seriously?

    Or would you prefer a paper that is always looking out for our best interests, questioning claims by ALL political parties (something very evident for those with a memory … despite what some fools on here may claim) and community groups to ensure details are exposed?

    Be careful what you wish for people ….. because without SSO the only news we’d be getting each week is a glossy paper filled with re-written press releases, out of date social pictures and tired, pointless garbage.

    Stand proud SSO – stand proud because you had the courage to print what was at that point the story as the facts stated.

    Stand proud because you had the courage to then print the new chain of events after the Greens mobilised their political army of hyenas.

    And stand proud because anybody who has given this who state of affairs more than a nano-second of consideration knows that what you did was journalism as it happens.

    I know how difficult it can be when you are faced with a vicious bunch of self-interested piranas only too happy to bitch, claw, scratch and tear strips from you under the relative privacy of an online forum. Gutless wonders with short memories all ….

  6. I agree with almost everyones comments above. Consensus is last weeks article was appauling journalism.

    There is also general agreement in the feedback that this weeks retraction really required an apology from Andrew and its clear that he is unable and unwilling to provide this. Pretty average retraction in my opinion.

    Finally, the above feedback shows that THE GLBTI community dont want SSO writing crap like this to alienate the one party who is always on our side.

    SSO can do so much better than this and when you stuff up be man enough to take it on the chin and dish out appropriate apologies.

    No doubt the Greens will be reviewing these comments to gauge community feedback on the article. For the record I salute Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for raising the private members Bill and doing everything in her power to fly the rainbow flag for our rights.

  7. I’m with Lea and Ben. Political parties must answer the media’s questions simply and directly. Its the politicians responsibility to provide as much information as possible. They are there to serve us not their parties etc. So when the Greens behave like Labour and Liberals and respond to questions with political spin they should expect people to be treated suspiciously. The rights of the LGBTI community are too important to be left to “trust” or whatnot of politicans. Its being realistic and firm in our demand for marriage equality.

  8. SSO seem a bit upset that their many see their apology as insincere, that they did all that was in their power to convey quality journalism when they printed their front-page “Greens sell-out” article and on retraction, felt the need to justify their position “sorry, but.” They may have asked a yes/no question of the Greens but they should also be well aware that no politician likes giving a yes/no answer. Even if you ask them 4 or 5 times, even then will they rarely provide a yes or no.

    Politicians are also aware of journalists’ ability to manipulate an interview to their liking and vice versa. This is the ‘game’ of politics and the media which has been going on for ages and which will never stop. I don’t really see anybody at fault here, more that people are almost surprised at this ‘game’ being played out yet again, this time on SSO’s front page the political double talk definitely deserves front-page coverage, even longer articles. Why ‘is’ everyone so surprised then? Do we really expect straight-talking politicians and truth-bearing journos?

  9. Penelope- the specific question that was put to both Senators Brown and Hanson-Young was-

    “Can you confirm that such a deal was done with the Government to limit debate on the Marriage bill to half an hour in exchange for it being voted on?”

    I also alerted the designated media contacts at both Senators offices as to the specific nature of my inquiry over the phone prior to sending through my questions.

    Senator Brown was not prepared to comment on the issue and his office directed me to Senator Hanson-Young.

    Senator Hanson-Young’s response to the question was-

    “Yesterday’s vote does not end the debate – I will bring this bill back in the first session of the new sitting of Parliament, and the Greens will continue to fight for this inevitable removal of outdated discrimination until the law is changed.”

    “In general, timing for debate of Private Member’s bills is extremely limited. The Greens have been pushing for more time to debate Private Member’s Bills like this one.”

    That response clearly fails to answer the question.

    I note that when mainstream daily newspapers print a factual error (as they frequently do) they generally print a tiny correction notice and place it in an obscure column in the paper among the news briefs.

    We have corrected the error that went into print last week with an article longer than the original article that contained the error and put that article on our front page.

  10. The Greens have been given far, far more opportunity here to “set the record straight” than ever is given to the ALP.

    Stories on Labor usually damn with faint praise, condemn outright or “remind” readers of past sins.The correction offered here would never be bothered with if it was a Labor politician.

    The Greens can’t continue to be given a free ride. Questioning of ALL political parties by the is critical to the community.

  11. You were looking for a “no” but I see no mention of a specific question in your article. Besides the obvious problems with the journalism here, your readers are left wondering exactly what the big mystery is! Did you call Senators Brown and Hanson-Young to ask directly “did you sell out?”? How could we really be convinced that there was a huge deception by the Greens when we are still unaware of what question/s they failed to answer.

    As for your apology, all you needed was a simple “sorry” to end speculation as to your journalistic credibility.

  12. What an appauling ‘apology’. The Greens are the only party with any political power to stand up for LGBTIQ rights and a front page slam is dished out with absolutely no legitimate basis? Senator Hanson-Young is owed a personal apology. After all the hard work she has done for this Bill to further other people’s rights, you publicly and very loudly accuse her of selling out. That’s disgusting.

  13. A pathetic piece of journalism and a pathetic explanation. What could possibly have been the rationale for the Greens to behave as alleged and so inconsistently with their usual practice? The story made no sense.

    It makes me wonder whether the SSO is worth the effort of picking up and bringing home.

  14. Andrew M Potts, instead of blaming The Greens for your own mistakes, you should take responsibility for them – and resign.

  15. This Day Tonight, A Current Affair and 60 Minutes salute you Sydney Star Observer. Well done.

    “The Senator finally agreed to talk . . .”
    How unbelievably rude of her not to drop everything at your request. The Star’s sense of importance has been replaced by it’s sense of impotence.

    “Point blank questions require point blank answers”.
    No they don’t. Your question based on speculation, innuendo and rumour is contemptuous, and it deserved to be treated as such but wasn’t.

    “The role of GLBT media is to answer the concerns of our readers . . . ”
    No it’s not; its role is to report on matters relevant to its readership, after thorough investigation and research, not whip up storm based on hearsay.

    Lea Stevens.
    “Blaming the messenger is illusory and leads to populist agendas and reporting, if that’s what you want it’s not here in SSO.”
    Surely, Lea, thee SSO’s own headline, ‘We were wrong’ is an admission of its guilt, and is, therefore transparent not illusory. The blame has been correctly placed.
    Populist agendas not in the SSO? I’m sorry Lea but it is in the SSO and in spades. If equal marriage is not a populist agenda then the organisers of the upcoming rally in support of it may be very disappointed with the turnout.

  16. The SSO’s reactionary error was in stark contrast to SX Sydney, the competition LGTB tabloid, that waited for information to be confirmed before being so reactionary in journalism. The credibility of the SSO’s reputation has clearly lowered considerably by thinking readers, just looking at the volume of responses.
    Technically, if you look at the Greens as a party, it is impossible for them to make decisions so quickly without consensus. Hence the tension of timing. Most people who know how the parties work know political parties protocols and structure within the parties. But the SSO has demonstrated that it knows absolutely nothing about how the Greens Party Operates technically in protocols as a Party. Any statement from any spokesperson needs at least some consultation from the Party. A decision like this cannot be made technically so quickly in the Greens as it is against Greens policy. So what the SSO assumed was happening “doing deals” with the major parties is technically impossible.
    The Greens, from what I can see as an observer, have always been on the ball for all LGTBI.
    The SSO appears to be sabotaging an agenda to help LGTBIs. This paper appeared to be counter productive and divisive to LGTBIs to benefit of the major parties, and was an attack to the Greens.
    For the record, I am not a member of any political party.

  17. I was flabberghasted to see Andrew refer to Rodney Croome’s blog as having come out before his own, as an excuse of some sort for his own critique of the Greens.

    I say this because Andrew is not a babe-in-the-woods and would know that for many years, Rodney has been a serial Greens critic, stridently so and ever so biased as a result. I believe Rodney was affronted by Bob Brown not having seen eye to eye with him in Tassie many years ago. Since then Rodney has made it a mission to rubbish the Greens ever since. This is all in the public arena and has been for many a year. Andrew would lose all credibility if he were to deny this knowledge.

    Your supposed explanation as to why you wrote what you did sounds to me to be an extension of your 1st negative report.
    Are we looking to see another Rodney Croome type in Andrew Potts? If so, the SSO will be the loser.

  18. Well these things happen…I guess. I think the good thing was people could see through the story miss information.

    The Greens are the only Party that supports and end to all discrimination against us, and has helped people like my partner, who suffered discrimination as a Doctor by Tony Abbott and got no support from Labor, whilst on a Federal Award. Labor and Liberal both act to discriminate against us all Federally.

    The Greens do a lot of work for the community that does not get published and they do not seek to publish it.

    At least the SSO has said they were very wrong.

  19. Honestly, what an appalling act of journalism. It is astounding that you can base an article on mere speculation and conspiracy theory, and then blame The Greens in your retraction. I was at Daylesford Chillout on Sunday and your affiliate newspaper Southern Star was being handed out to 1000’s of people. I had friends point out this very article on the front page, who took the story on face value. I explained that it was crap and untrue. So what about all the other people who read that article and believe what was written. You gave done a grave injustice to our community and the one party who has the balls to stand up for us. The only people who are “left looking decidedly fishy” is the staff at SSO. Seriously disappointed in you guys and gals, I expect more of you.

  20. In defence of SSO, I beg to differ … had the Greens answered the question in a simple and direct manner, which is how the question was put, it would not be lingering in some pretend limbo and still being discussed !!!
    By the way, direct responses are rarely a Green habit, and had they not chosen to smudge the edges to create some controversy where none really existed, the deal would have been reported correctly and over and done with as it should have been !!!
    You have to make up your own mind as to whether you believe the standard of reportage in SSO or not, if not – bugger off!! Blaming the messenger is illusory and leads to populist agendas and reporting, if that’s what you want it’s not here in SSO.
    Wake up to yourselves and don’t be so easily manipulated by very transparent political agendas !!!

  21. Using unconfirmed suspicion for a front page story is appalling. Further from that, there is no actual apology from you in your response. This is an item of gross misconduct for which you must take full responsibility.

    Further you may note that your ‘apology’ article reads thus in people’s RSS readers:


    We were wrong
    Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young says a deal was struck to to force a vote …

    For anyone who doesn’t stop to read the full article (which I almost didn’t) it appears the Greens were wrong in striking a deal.

  22. “All we needed was a simple ‘NO’ to end speculation”.
    If it was speculation, then why did you print it as a statement rather than as a question?
    This kind of behaviour throws into question everything else you’ve written. Why risk the reputation of your paper by spinning the story the way that you did? It’s not like you’re trying to make people buy it, so why use a sensationalist headline?

  23. Just answer the question???

    Mate you guys are supposed to be teling the news how it is.

    What a waste of my time it was reading that incorrect article you ran on your front page last week. While there was no “NO” in their statement, I certainly didnt read into it that they had brokered a deal. You have certainly created a story out of nothing in this instance.

    You I you need to get your facts straight before you run a front page story like that otherwise you will be placed in the same categroy as “today tonight” or “ACA”.

    This certainly casts doubt in my mind when I read your paper whether you have got the facts straight or whether perhaps I should wait for the paper the next week for your retraction. And I love reading my SSO every week.

    Its so important that you get it right because I often then email or call political parties and take them to task on what you have reported.

    Fnally there is no apology from you in your response. Its all the Greens fault for not putting everything out on a platter for you.

    regards

  24. What a mealy-mouthed apology. OK, now we understand why you wrongly thought that the Greens senators MIGHT have been involved in arranging for a vote instead of a debate, but there’s still no explanation why this SUSPICION of a parliamentary strategy, would warrant the front-page headline “Greens marriage sellout.” How insulting from a paper that’s supposed to represent queer people. I still can’t help thinking someone at ALP HQ is pulling the strings at SSO.

  25. hope this is the front page of the thursdays edition otherwise your credibility as a serious gay and lesbian newspaper looks shaky….