No, I haven’t.
Isn’t a vote for an independent a waste, especially in Bradfield? You’ll never form government and you’ll never be a minister.
In our preferential system, all votes are worth the same until preferences are exhausted. That’s why no vote is a wasted one. I have a desire to overcome the tribal gridlock that the party system has put us through. I’d argue that’s exactly the opposite of a wasted vote.
I did not run in 2022 to “form government”. I ran to be a true representative for Bradfield.
Our major parties will be here for some time to come, and one side or the other will form government for the next few federal elections at least. But it is likely that will only be with the agreement of smaller parties and independents on the crossbench, if not in 2022, then in subsequent elections. The days of outright overwhelming majorities are gone and as voters show they want politics done differently.
These ‘Voices of’ independents are only running in Liberal seats. That’s proof that you’re trying to damage the Liberal Party isn’t it?
I’ve lived in Bradfield for 41 of my 51 years and so there is nowhere else that I could reputably run for public office. I’m running to reorient the policies of the federal government to better reflect the values of the people of Bradfield.
My campaign is a community one. The largest contribution to the 2022 campaign was the time donated by our 600+ volunteers; the second largest was from individual donors from the Bradfield electorate and beyond.
During 2022 campaign I also accepted donations from individuals via two organisations – Climate 200 and Voices of Bradfield. The contribution from these two crowdfunding organisations helped kickstart my small community campaign. I did not enter into any agreement with either organisation for their donations and am under no obligation because of accepting them.
No. I am an independent and I have no deals or agreements with any parties or organisations that control my positions.
Voices of are grassroots groups that have sprung up around the country in response to community frustration with the way party politics is failing to address the issues that are important to them. I was endorsed by Voices of Bradfield as an independent candidate for the federal election. One of their criteria was a candidate who could credibly represent the views of the various communities in our electorate, not just a party line or, indeed, a Voices of Bradfield line. My views and positions are decided by me, following the clear process I have outlined on this website.
I am Bradfield through and through. I have lived here for most of my life, grew up here, studied here, raise my kids here. I understand that Bradfield has many communities, and many concerns, some shared and some unique to particular groups.
I bring real-world business experience and policy acumen from a 30-year career working in capital markets, clean energy and climate change policy.
I have worked for a decade in and around Parliament House, as an advocate for clean energy and climate policy. I know how things work in Parliament and I know it can be toxic, especially for women. But that also means I know what needs to change.
I am a professional collaborator, advocate and change-maker. I know that those with the loudest voices and most visible presence are not necessarily representative of everyone worth listening to.
To represent Bradfield I will:
• Seek out and learn from experts
• Listen to and respect your stories, and test draft policy positions with you
• Apply common sense and make decisions in the national interest
I will establish Bradfield Issues Groups (BIGs), forums made up of locals who want to be heard on issues of concern them. There are tremendous talents, depths of experience, and lifetimes of learning in Bradfield. It makes perfect sense to draw on that for our shared benefit.
My principles and values are clearly laid out at www.nicoletteboele.com.au. Of course, some of those align with those of other representatives and other parties, but first and foremost, I am an independent.
I sincerely believe that a simple left/right axis and a forced choice between only the ALP and the Liberal National Coalition does our country a disservice. Challenges are complex and multidimensional, so solutions should be too.
I see the shadow representative as having three purposes:
1. To listen to and learn from my community
2. To skill up myself and supporters in advance of winning the seat at the next election
3. To demonstrate that there is a viable alternative to the two-party system
Being a shadow representative is not analogous to being the elected federal Member for Bradfield, because the sitting Member:
1. Gets paid to represent; the shadow representative does not;
2. Has formal power; the shadow representative does not;
3. Has party backing; the shadow representative does not.
If I had been elected to Parliament I would have supported the Government’s censure motion, notwithstanding the argument that to do so would be an “inappropriate use of well-established procedure”. The extraordinary decisions by the previous Prime Minister warranted an extraordinary response. I concede that there is an element of political theatre in such a motion, but it was ever thus in Australian politics.
More tellingly, when asked to vote on the motion, MPs are faced with a choice of supporting it – theatrical though that may be – or not supporting it, by opposing or abstaining. I could not do anything but support the motion. Mr Morrison’s actions were fundamentally anti-democratic and to do other than publicly censure them in the House of Representatives is to rank other considerations more highly, whether that’s party loyalty, the status of the former Prime Minister as a back-bencher, or mere “optics”. The very institution that should have democracy and accountability at its core has to not only say it has those values, but be seen to defend them when they are undermined. I do not believe that simply support of the recommendations of High Court Justice Bell, necessary as that was, would have been sufficient. Fundamentally, I see the vote as one on an MP’s basic values. I suppose every vote can be seen that way, but in the case of the censure motion the message could not have been clearer.