November 8, 2022
QUESTION: Just your thoughts on the big spend with the teals, $12 million for those candidates. Any donation reforms coming?
PATERSON: I thought it was extraordinary that the Climate 200 movement raised about $13 million and that more than a third of that, almost $5 million, came from just three political donors. If the Liberal Party collected that much donations from those many high net worth individuals or the Labor Party collected that much donations from the union movement, there would be outrage and the loudest criticisms would be coming from the crossbenchers and the teals. They would say this is democracy being bought by rich people and they'd be outraged. So, I think they need to reflect on what they told the electorate and what they've been saying for months, which is that they're supposedly a people powered movement with thousands of grassroots donors. Now we know the truth. They are bought and paid for by some of Australia's richest people who stand to benefit from the policies that they advocate.
QUESTION: But in comparison though, Labor and the Libs still spend phenomenally more money on the election campaign?
PATERSON: Only because we contest every electorate in the country. If they contested every electorate in the country and spent as much as they did in those electorates, they
would massively outspend us. It's extraordinary to be spending $2 million or thereabouts on a single seat. Most Liberal Party candidates, including MPs who are re-elected, spend nowhere near that amount of money. This is an extraordinary amount of money, an unusual amount of money, and it is an innovation that teals have brought to our political system despite their criticism of money in politics.
QUESTION: So, you agree there should be reforms?
PATERSON: Well, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is now looking at this and we'll carefully consider any recommendations that they make. I found it interesting that the Climate 200 executive director who appeared before the committee was opposed to any donation caps. Again, this seems very inconsistent with their so-called scrutiny, transparency and integrity agenda that these MPs, now MPs, campaigned on.
QUESTION: Another twist in the Medibank saga. What's your advice to Medibank customers who now may have their data compromised?
PATERSON: It's very important for Medibank customers to be on high alert today in case they are subject to any piggyback or attempted other criminals to take advantage of this news. It's highly likely that they will be contacted by people who will seek to say that if you don't pay me individually a ransom, then I'll release your personal information. They shouldn't do so. It's highly likely it won't be someone who actually has access to the data, and even if they did, there's no guarantee that paying that will ensure they get any money back. So, they should be on high alert. They should contact Medibank in the first instance if they receive any of these extortion attempts. They should also be on alert if there's any unusual activity in their bank accounts or email accounts.
QUESTION: Just back on donations, very briefly, does this open these independents up to criticism that they're essentially a political party if the money's coming from the same place?
PATERSON: I think it's undeniably the case that the teals are political party. They look and sound and smell like a political party. They had a highly centralised campaign and financing structure. They basically have a template which they rolled out in every seat which was centrally controlled and mandated, and their policies were virtually indistinguishable. So, I think their claims to be independent are very hollow.
QUESTION: And back on Medicare, are you satisfied that, Medibank rather, they're not paying a ransom, but does there need to be changes to any Australian laws to make sure that companies don't pay ransoms or don't even have that ability to pay ransom?
PATERSON: People do advocate from time to time the banning of ransom payments. I think that's something the parliament needs to carefully consider. It certainly is the advice of the Australian government consistently not to pay ransom because there is no guarantee that you'll get your data back and you are contributing to others being hacked in the future by paying ransom. So, I think that's something the parliament needs to consider. Thanks everyone.
ENDS
