The wildest details of the Rugg v Ryan affidavits

The affidavits in the legal dispute between independent MP Monique Ryan and her former chief of staff Sally Rugg have laid bare what the culture of Parliament House can take from those who work there.

It is a higher-stakes rendition of a common enough workplace breakdown narrative — from early excitement about a new working relationship to anxiety and drawn-out misery.

But because it is taking place in Parliament House, it’s also at times quite fantastically grandiose.

Early days

From Ryan’s affidavit of February 2, we get Rugg’s cover letter when she applied for the role:

As your chief of staff, I’d seek a close working relationship built on multifaceted trust. Trust that I’ll deliver the work you’ve asked for and anticipated that which you haven’t … Trust that if we encountered conflict or contention that we’d resolve it frankly, quickly and as an investment in our working relationship. Trust in my loyalty as a confidant, an ally and a deeply respectful and definitely-not-patronising personal cheerleader

She closes “Yours in teal”.

With the sincere tenor pitched like this, we can have some sympathy with the commentators and politicians who fell for the faked affidavit excerpt which alleged Ryan wanted to end every speech with a Black Panther inspired “Kooyong Forever” gesture.

Ryan’s potential leadership goals

According to Rugg’s (real) affidavit of January 25, during the end of a probation performance appraisal, when Ryan told Rugg that she didn’t think things were working out, Rugg insisted she was working extremely hard and Ryan said: “You don’t understand, I need to be the best. This is bigger than Kooyong. I don’t know what this is going to be, but I know it’s bigger than Kooyong.”

She then went on to say: “I want to be the prime minister one day, and I need to know my staff are prepared to work hard for me.”

Ryan has since told reporters the PM thing was a joke, which is exactly what I would say if a conversation like that got out. Ryan has since reminded everyone that she certainly does have a sense of humour — jibed about her chances of making it to the lodge by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton during question time, she shot back that she would “be there before you are”, which got a laugh.

Punishing hours

The matter comes to a head with an all-team meeting that Ryan attempts to schedule — with 30 minutes notice — at 9am on a Sunday in November. Rugg pushes back with “it’s not great to call a team meeting at 8.40am on a Sunday morning for 20 mins time … Can I suggest a meeting later in the day so people have time to organise with their families that they have a work call?”

This leads to an argument in early December, where Rugg alleges Ryan said: “I have to push you too many times to deliver work. I shouldn’t have had to call the meeting on the Sunday, because it’s your responsibility to make sure I’m prepared. You should have organised the meeting on the Friday.”

Rugg said it went something like:

(c) I said ‘I was sick with covid on the Friday, do you remember?’;
(d) Dr Ryan said ‘yes but you were working’;
(e) I said ‘I was working as much as I could and if you had asked me to call a meeting, I
would have done that.’

By this time, the pair is already talking about performance reviews. Indeed, Ryan argues she had lost faith in Rugg in November when Rugg had boarded a plane knowing she had COVID-19.

The bitter end

On December 21, Rugg — who maintains throughout the affidavit that she wanted to continue working for Ryan and that reconciliation would be possible — is called into Ryan’s office. Ryan, among other things, expresses frustration at the length of time the performance review is taking. Rugg cites her recent sick leave as a factor, to which she says Ryan replies:

(j) Dr Ryan rolled her eyes and said ‘yeah right, stress leave’ and made air quotes with
her hands.;
(k) I said ‘it sounds like you think I was pretending to need leave’;
(l) Dr Ryan said, in a sarcastic manner, ‘come on, stress leave? Stress leave?’;
(m) I said ‘Monique, you’re a GP. I can’t believe you’re accusing me of faking my
medical leave.’

Ryan’s affidavit, interestingly, doesn’t address this allegation. Rugg says she was given the option of either being fired, or resigning and receiving six weeks’ pay and a commitment not to disparage her. She asks that this be put in writing and that it be discussed further with a representative of Minister and Parliamentary Services (MAPS). According to Rugg:

(t) Dr Ryan became very angry and raised her voice. She said ‘you know I can’t speak
about this in front of MAPS. This isn’t an approved option. This is off book. MAPS
have given me two options. To terminate you on the spot or to performance manage
you out. MAPS wants me to performance manage you out. I’m trying to give you a
third option that’s mutually beneficial, but it has to be done off the record’;
(u) I said ‘well, if I’m going to consider this, I need you to put this in writing. I need to
know the details of what you’re offering’;
(v) Dr Ryan became even angrier and said ‘you know I can’t put this in writing! I can’t
have a paper trail!’

Ryan’s affidavit simply says she “could not see the point” of putting the arrangement in writing.

Do your sympathies lie with Ryan or Rugg? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.