Media
|
Transcripts
December 11, 2025
PETER STEFANOVIC: The AFR revealed today, the Prime Minister, for a second time in six months, hosted a full ministry meeting in Sydney, followed by a fundraising event, and that allowed attendees to bill taxpayers for travel as Labor raked in donations. In the Australian this morning, Trade Minister Don Farrell used taxpayer funds to fly his wife and other family members, a distance almost halfway to the moon, while the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young ferried her lobbyist husband to and from Canberra on 78 publicly funded airfares. And in The Guardian this morning, a revelation that senior politicians can claim unlimited travel expenses for their spouses. So all of that is according to the rules. Joining us live is the Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson. James, it's good to see you this morning. So, within the rules, is that a good enough defence?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good morning Pete. No, it's certainly not a good enough defence, and it's the main defence that Anika Wells has been running for herself and others have been running on her behalf. But just because you can doesn't mean you should. You're also capable of exercising judgement. And one of the principles in both the Ministerial Code of Conduct and in the rules for parliamentary expenses is they have to be publicly justifiable and in line with community expectations. It's very clear whether it's the $100,000 flights in New York City, the almost $2,000 meal at a Michelin starred restaurant in Paris, whether it is - sorry, I've got some interference coming through there - whether it is keeping a Comcar driver waiting for ten hours, Anika Wells has consistently exercised very poor judgment and not upheld those reasonable community expectations.
PETER STEFANOVIC: So what do you make of the defence, and the Prime Minister said this a number of times yesterday, this has been referred now to the watchdog, so it's being kept at arm's length, which gives them cover to move away from the scandal?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, frankly, I'm not sure exactly what has been referred to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. Because for example, have the New York City flights been referred to IPEA? Has the Paris meal been referred to IPEA? I think Anika Wells needs to release the full terms of reference today of exactly what's been referred to IPEA, so we know what is going to be reviewed and what is not. Because some of the defence which is made on her behalf is that this is all about the use of the family reunion budget. But again, many of those expenses had nothing to do with the family reunion budget. Her family was not with her in Paris, her family was not with her in New York. Her family is not responsible for her keeping a Comcar driver waiting ten hours outside a grand final. So again, it has to be very clear about what's being reviewed here. That's why we've called for the Prime Minister to refer this to the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for a review as to whether Anika Wells has complied with the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is appropriately a higher bar than just the IPEA guidelines.
PETER STEFANOVIC: So, I mean, all parties are guilty of this. They have all got their nose in the trough, so to speak. The Liberal Party as well, and there's been all this sort of talk about what changes, if any, might need to take place moving forward, whether it's a restriction of the travel of spouses, what have you. What restrictions would you like to see moving forward so that there's just not this splash of cash when everyone else is struggling to earn a dime?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, Pete, you say that it's affected all parties, and certainly the revelations about the Greens this morning and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young do need to be explained. And there are other cabinet ministers now being embroiled, including Don Farrell, which really surprises me, given he's the Special Minister of State. But actually, the examples involving Liberal and National MPs in the media this morning and this week, frankly, pale in comparison with what Anika Wells has done. She is in a league of her own. None of my colleagues have done anywhere near what she has done. None of them are off to Thredbo for taxpayer-funded ski holidays or all the rest. So we're up for a conversation about changing the rules, but actually, I don't think the rules are the primary issue here. The primary issue here is the Minister's judgment. And that's worrying because in her day job as a minister, when she's not travelling around to sporting events and the Logies and Oasis, when she's doing her day job, she's got to make decisions every day in the interest of the Australian public. She's got to exercise judgment. And if she can't exercise judgment in her expenses of taxpayers' money, then how can we trust her to exercise good judgment when it comes to her portfolio in the national interest?
PETER STEFANOVIC: But as for restrictions, I mean, would you be open to any moving forward?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Look, as I said, we're up for a sensible conversation about changes to make sure that this scheme is actually in line with community expectations. Because by definition, if people are doing things which they believe are within the rules but do not meet community expectations, then we've got a problem. Now I think the primary person responsible is the person who makes those decisions, not the rules. But if we need to change the rules so that people like Anika Wells can't do this, they're prevented from doing this, then we're happy to look at that.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, couple of other issues this morning, James. This one that we've been covering about the Trump administration planning doesn't mean it's going to happen. At this stage, it's a proposal to check over anyone's social media history for the past five years before handing out a visa. How would you feel about that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Look, as you said earlier, Pete, some of this is not new. It's standard information you do have to provide. Obviously, it would be new to hand over your social media accounts for five years and your records. The immigration policies of the United States government really are a matter for the United States, just as Australia's immigration policy is a matter for us. It's not up to me to tell the U.S. government what they can and can't do when they screen visa applicants, nor would we accept them telling the Australian government what we can do about how we screen our visa applicants.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Assumably, if you've said anything negative about Donald Trump in the past, you just delete your post before you apply for a visa.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: People may well do that. I wouldn't want to give U.S. visa application advice, certainly not on your program this morning.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, just a final one here. Talking about immigration, and I'm sure you're going to reveal all the details for me this morning, James, but about this values test which we're reading about that's going to be toughened, this ahead of your migration policy, which is going to be announced before Christmas. Do you have any idea of how many you would expect to be caught up in all of that? Any more details you can share on that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, just to directly address some of the speculation in the article in The Australian today, part of that article was wrong. If we are going to be implementing a values based test for visa applicants, it will be universal in application, it will not be discriminatory, it will not single out any one nationality or country of origin. And it will say that if you want to come to this country, you have to abide by and uphold the values of this country. And I think that is a very reasonable requirement. We expect that of any visitor here, not to just comply with our laws, which is of course critical and important, but actually uphold our values too.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, we'll leave it there, James Paterson, thank you.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thanks, Pete.
ENDS