|
March 24, 2025
JAMES PATERSON: Good afternoon. Well, the Teal politicians are the first and the loudest to preach integrity. The Teal politicians are the first and the loudest to preach honesty. But when they think no one's looking, they behave very differently indeed. At the last election, the Teals promised to do politics differently. I didn't realise when they said that what they meant was they would engage in vigilante sign theft and enforcing council bylaws themselves rather than reporting it to the appropriate authorities. The footage that has emerged today of Monique Ryan's husband, Peter Jordan, reflects very badly on her and her campaign and the way in which they have conducted themselves. It is not appropriate for any campaign member or volunteer, let alone the husband of a member of parliament, to go around stealing people's signs if they think they that haven't been properly installed. If you are concerned about sign locations, report it to your local council and leave it to them to enforce their own local laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first instance of bad behaviour from Monique Ryan's campaign in the last few weeks. The Herald Sun reported last week that Monique Ryan herself engaged in verbal abuse towards two teenage Liberal Party volunteers and has been reported to have said, quote, we can get nasty if you want to get nasty. That's appalling conduct from a member of Parliament. And Monique Ryan really should front up today and explain her conduct and explain the conduct of her campaign. The Liberal Party's campaign in Kooyong has reported dozens of signs being stolen or vandalised over the last couple of weeks. Can Monique Ryan guarantee that her husband or her campaign were not involved in any of those instances of sign theft or those instances of sign vandalism?
Of course, the most concerning thing about the Teals is not this issue but the way they have behaved here in Canberra. They ran at the last election purporting to be independents, but when they got here to Canberra, they behaved like Greens. And Monique Ryan, like most of her Teal colleagues votes with the Greens overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. 77% of the time in Monique Ryan's case, those votes included voting against bipartisan legislation to put in mandatory minimum sentences for terrorism offences to keep Australians safe. Bipartisan legislation to toughen up the granting of visas to people who have been released from immigration detention, who committed serious crimes. And, of course, voting with the government to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which has unleashed the CFMEU on building sites including in her home state of Victoria. The Teals ran as one thing at the last election but they have behaved very differently. Happy to take some questions.
JOURNALIST: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PATERSON: Sorry. I've just got one on the phone first, then I will come here. Look the Liberal Party can answer for the location of the sign. But let's take it as read, let's say it was placed inappropriately. If that's the case, then the appropriate thing to do is to report it to the council or, indeed, knock on the door of the homeowner and say, I think this sign has been inappropriately placed; could you please move it? Not to take matters into your own hands and to steal the property of another political campaign.
JOURNALIST: Isn't it misleading to say that the Teals vote let's say it's 76%, 78%, 79% of the time, whatever the exact figure might be on a per-Teal basis with Labor and the Greens, because a lot of the votes where they're voting with the government, with the Greens are just procedural votes?
PATERSON: No, I don't think it's misleading at all. Monique Ryan is trying to torture the data here. She's tried to pull out a subset of votes to try and make it look less bad that she votes as often as she does with the Greens. But even with her own data, taking her own numbers at face value, the political party that she most often votes with in the House of Representatives is the Greens. The politician who she sits most often with in the chamber is Adam Bandt and she can answer for that. But our figures of 77% of voting with the Greens, that is the raw data. It is the total data. The total number of votes she has cast in a House of Representatives.
JOURNALIST: Just on another matter Senator Paterson, I was wondering the proposal for a possible referendum. Being a last resort or a first resort, did that actually go to Shadow Cabinet?
PATERSON: James, the first rule of Shadow Cabinet is you don't talk about Shadow Cabinet. I know you know that. And I'm not going to breach that here. I can speak for myself though, and say that I very strongly support what Peter Dutton has said, which is that as a last resort, if other measures fail, we're willing to keep a referendum on the table as an option to solve this issue. Because Peter Dutton is a strong leader and he will always put our country first, and always put community safety first. We will have more to say about the other measures that we will announce in this area soon, and they will involve legislative first steps that we can take to hopefully resolve this issue. But if all other measures fail and if the only option available to protect the community is a referendum, we are not going to take that off the table.
JOURNALIST: To another one of your major policies heading into the election. The nuclear policy has been spruiked a lot recently by the Nationals, and this morning, David Littleproud said that he would override the states using the constitutional powers vested in the Federal government. If needed, if, say, they don't comply with the government's demands. Considering David Crisafulli hasn't necessarily been a glowing supporter of nuclear power, are you at all concerned about that, and will you actually be pursuing to override the states?
PATERSON: Well, it's our ambition to work with the states to introduce emissions-free, reliable, affordable nuclear energy as we transition to a net zero energy system. And we hope if we earn a mandate from the Australian people at the next election, that the federal parliament here in Canberra and that all state premiers respect the mandate that we've earned from the Australian people to introduce nuclear power. And our first priority will be to sit down and negotiate and work with them constructively. And I suspect you'll see a lot of state premiers willing to work with us because there are numerous opportunities for their states and for the communities with emissions-free nuclear energy.
JOURNALIST: And would a mandate only come if you got a majority?
PATERSON: Well, we can get into mandate theory, but if the Liberal Party takes and the National Party takes to the next election, emissions-free nuclear policy, and we win, and we form a government after the next election, then I think we clearly have a mandate. I can take two more questions then I've got to run.
JOURNALIST: Senator Patterson in the ERC-
PATERSON: I just want to make sure that everyone here gets to ask a question then we can come back to you if there is time.
JOURNALIST: In the ERC meeting, in the ERC meeting that you had about the constitutional referendum idea or proposal or whatever you want to call it, isn't it correct that both you and Senator Michaelia Cash argued against the proposal being adopted?
PATERSON: No, it's not true. And, of course, I'm not going to go into the details of a Shadow ERC meeting. But my position is the position that the party has adopted and we will be outlining in more detail in the coming weeks, which is the first pursue legislative options to resolve this issue, and then if all other measures fail that we keep on the table the option of a referendum to resolve this issue.
JOURNALIST: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] So you're confirming it was discussed in ERC, then, Senator? You're confirming it was discussed in ERC, then Senator.
PATERSON: James, I don't think it's very respectful to your colleagues, given you've had a fair few goes that other journalists haven't yet asked a question.
JOURNALIST: So you're not answering the question, or you have confirmed-
PATERSON: James, I think you should let your colleagues ask a question.
JOURNALIST: Senator, just while you been standing here, Monique Ryan and her husband have issued apologies for removing the sign. Peter Jordan says he unreservedly apologises. And it was a mistake. Do you accept their apology?
PATERSON: We'll certainly welcome that. It is the right thing to do if you make a mistake like this to apologise for it. But what I want to understand is, is this the first time that Peter Jordan has attempted to steal a Liberal Party sign? Is Monique Ryan aware of any other reports of inappropriate behaviour from her volunteers? Have any of her other volunteers been involved in the significant sign theft and vandalism that has occurred in Kooyong? And really, all we're asking for in Kooyong is a clean contest. All we're asking for is that Monique Ryan gets an opportunity to campaign with her message and that we get an opportunity to campaign on ours. And we ask that Liberal Party signs be left alone. If you've got any concerns about their placement, take it up with our campaign or take it up with the local council.
Thank you everyone.
ENDS