Page:Deeming v Pesutto (No 3) (2024, FCA).pdf/52

field. So out of left field. I honestly thought it was the other side. Anyway, so that's easy to condemn, like just flat out. And I, because, like, I don't know what she has said in the past. So, to just condemn in general, I don't know, Nazism, you know the beliefs, that would make more sense because what if I leave something out, and I don't want to condemn a whole person, I just want to say that if they've said that then I disagree with that or –

JP – But Moira, I mean, look it's a question for you but do you even as a political figure, I mean you're [a] public figure, do you actually want to be associated with Angie Jones?

MD I just don't want to set a standard where just because I'm talking to someone or agree with someone on one thing, that means I agree with them on everything. Or that I have to –

JP I'm sorry, what I should have clarified is, do you actually want to be associated with a person who basically will be interpreted as saying that anybody who's in the LGBTI community is paedo filth, is that the kind of person, as you as a public figure –

MD– No, but honestly –

JP – That just kills us.

MD And I'm happy to make a statement that that's not what I believe. I just don't think. I honestly don't think that's what she believes.

JP I think you've got that wrong.

MD And I think she needs to have a clarification statement because clearly that's not the way it's coming across –

JP We're not talking to Angie –

GC No, no, no we're not going there.

MD No, no, just for herself, I think she needs –

JP So, I mean in terms of. You know, so if we were to posit that there are three general scenarios, with the one in the middle being that we work on a statement, it would need be pretty hard, it would need to go a long way to disassociating yourself from them and disassociating us. But I guess, if I can go back to the threshold issue, if you want to be able to prosecute these issues, and this is – this was part of my reasoning, if you want to be able prosecute these issues, with the same passion you've got, I know – I know your passionate about these things so, I get it, but if you want to be able to continue to do that, the best way to do that might be to be an independent, to give you complete freedom. If you want to be in the party, it's possible to do that without having to relinquish your views, or walk away from the things you believe in, but there would have to be some clear, if you like, road rules. You can't hang out with these people. You just can't. You can't go to rallies. You're a senior figure of the Liberal Party, you represent all of us … But as a public figure, with responsibilities, as a senior liberal you'd have to be prepared to make sure that all of your language – and I'm not saying it has or hasn't been – I'm saying that the language would have to protect us at all times the team would have to be protected, from anything you say which doesn't mean you can't go out and argue case for things but that it protects the team at all times and protects our ability to win. If that, comparing that with the first scenario or the third, if that's possible, if you're willing to do that, then it may be – I don't know we would have to work through it and see if it's possible, then it may be possible to do something, but there is a fundamental question – and ultimately, Moira, I think – I think you have

---