Media
|
Transcripts
December 7, 2025
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Right now, around Australia, there are families sitting at their kitchen tables contemplating their latest electricity bill. And they're wondering, given how much electricity prices have been out of control on this government's watch, up 40% since they're elected, whether or not they'll be able to afford to put the air conditioner on this summer or whether they'll have to swelter in the heat. And as they contemplate that, they've learned that there's a Federal Minister, Anika Wells, who thinks it's perfectly appropriate to spend $100,000 on return flights from New York City, who thinks it's okay to spend $1,000 on a fancy meal in Paris, who thinks there's nothing wrong with spending more than $3,000 to travel to Adelaide to attend a birthday party of a friend, and who thinks it's okay to spend almost $3,000 on a ski holiday for her family at Thredbo. Every single one of those expenses came at taxpayers' expense. And Anika Wells is a Minister who's failed the kitchen table test.
She's a Minister who is not just out of touch with Australians, but she's out of touch with reality. We heard from the Minister on Sky this morning that all of her expenditure is within the rules and within the guidelines. But actually, we don't know that that's the case because none of this has been referred to any independent body for assessment. What she should do, as other Ministers have done when they've found themselves in these circumstances, is refer all of her travel expenses as a Minister to the independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority for review to make sure that they are actually are within the rules, not just asserted, as she says, that they're within the rules.
Now there are other precedents here, too. About 15 years ago, as a Minister in the Rudd-Gillard government, Tony Burke spent an eye-watering amount of money to take his family to Uluru for a family holiday. When that emerged, several years later, he eventually accepted that that expense was not within community expectations, and he paid the money back. But as far as we know, Anika Wells has not even contemplated, let alone offered, paying that money back. And frankly, I think she should think about doing so. Ministers of the Crown are paid very well, hundreds of thousands of dollars. If she wants to attend a birthday party of a friend, she can go at her own expense. If she wants to take her family on a ski holiday, she can pay for it herself. Otherwise, she's completely out of touch with those thousands of Australians around the country right now who are struggling to make ends meet.
Happy to take some questions.
JOURNALIST: What rules are you suggesting the Minister is in breach of?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, we just don't know. The Minister has asserted that it's within the rules, but Ministers are required to publicly justify their expenses and make sure it is in line with community expectations. I don't even know how you can spend $100,000 on return flights to New York City, even if you're flying business class. Sometimes first class flights don't even cost that much money. It bewilders me how she managed to spend that amount of money on those flights. And I think all of this should be put beyond doubt, all of this should be referred to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority for review to make sure it's actually within the rules as she claims they are.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying that the way that the Minister justified this morning, for example, doesn't quite pass the pub test, and that's why it needs to be passed on to that independent authority?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well I just can't contemplate how you could spend that much money on return flights to New York City, particularly to deliver a six and a half minute speech. That's an extraordinary expenditure of public money, and it has to be publicly justified and the minister had to, herself, personally approve it before it was entered into. So she needs to explain why she thinks it's within the rules, and not just her opinion that it is within the rules, but it should be reviewed independently.
JOURNALIST: The Prime Minister says both of Miss Wells' trips were within the guidelines of her travel. If it is correct, is it maybe the guidelines that are the problem rather than the Minister's or Prime Minister's judgement?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well the Prime Minister also has to approve all international travel by Ministers. So he should take some personal responsibility for the fact that the minister spent this much money on flights to New York City. If he doesn't think it's in line with community expectations, he could have said no. He could have said fly premium economy, fly economy, don't fly business class. Those are choices available to the Prime Minister and to the Minister. They didn't take those choices, and it's up to them to defend that publicly.
JOURNALIST: So you're not entertaining the fact that it might be a problem with the guidelines rather than the Ministers?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, the Minister repeatedly said today that it's within the guidelines. Even if we accept that's the case, she's still capable of making judgement as a Minister. She's still capable of making decisions as a Minister, and so is the Prime Minister. And if they don't think that this expenditure was appropriate, then they shouldn't have entered into it, they shouldn't have approved it. But they did, and they must bear responsibility.
JOURNALIST: History shows us that this has happened on both sides of politics. Will you commit to reviewing the rules or pushing the government to do so?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, we are happy to look at the rules, but rules are not a substitute for judgement. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. And as a Minister, if you want to attend a birthday party of a friend in Adelaide, don't construct a program of meetings around that visit. Just pay at your own expense. Go on your frequent flyers. It doesn't have to be billed to the taxpayer, even if it is technically within the rules, even if you can construct an artifice to make sure that it looks like it is within the rules. Actually, it just doesn't pass the kitchen table test, and a lot of Australians who are struggling right now with their electricity bills and other expenses won't think a Minister who's very well paid really needs to be taking these trips at taxpayers' expense.
JOURNALIST: So to clarify, any course of action will be towards those two individuals rather than the guidelines that they're acting apparently under?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: We are happy to look at the guidelines, but I really don't think that's the issue here. I'm not aware of other Ministers who could have done this. Maybe there are other Ministers who think it's appropriate to spend $100,000 flying to New York. Maybe there are other Ministers who spent a thousand dollars on a meal in Paris, which is apparently a "working meeting." But I'm really sceptical that other ministers have exercised this bad judgement that Anika Wells has. If it were just one of these things, maybe you could put it down to judgement. If it were just one of these things, maybe you could put it down to the rules. But it's happened so often, in so many instances, I think this is about Anika Wells and not about the rules.
JOURNALIST: Just on the social media ban, if I may, the Opposition Leader says she has no confidence that it will work. Does the Coalition support that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: We voted for the ban because we don't think social media is a safe place for children. We don't think children should be on social media platforms, and that's why we supported it. We are concerned about the way in which the government has implemented this ban, although we remain in support of the principle of getting young people off social media. It's inexplicable to me why social media platforms were in and then out and then in again. YouTube was going to be out, YouTube is in, Snapchat was going to be out, Snapchat is in. We're learning about new platforms every day, with the deadline fast approaching, that need to be included in the ban and others which inexplicably haven't been included, which make no sense at all. And so we are worried about the way the government is implementing this, but we hope it's a success because we do know that serious harm to the mental health of young people is being done on these platforms.
JOURNALIST: Wouldn't you rather go on that journey with the government rather than saying that you don't have confidence in it when you've been supporting it? Because there has been bipartisan support this whole time.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, we're very clear we support the principle, but we're entitled to raise questions about the way in which this government and this minister have gone about implementing it. It has been chaotic, and it has been confusing, and I am worried when the ban comes in place on Wednesday, there will be more than just teething problems with it. I am worried that young people are contemplating shifting from one social media platform to another to get around this ban when that was not the intent of the legislation when it was passed. I'm worried that young people will inadvertently be denied access to useful educational materials on platforms like YouTube, which was never intended when the legislation passed. The government has made decisions under regulation about which platforms are included and which ones aren't, and they have to bear responsibility for how this works in practice.
Thank you everyone.
ENDS