ABC 774 Drive with Raf Epstein
5.05 pm
5 September 2016
E & OE
EPSTEIN:
Somebody who spent some time in the chamber with Senator Dastyari, who is not doing interviews of course, is the Victorian Liberal Senator, Mitch Fifield. He is of course Minister for Communications as well in Malcolm Turnbull’s Government. Good afternoon.
FIFIELD:
Good afternoon, Raf.
EPSTEIN:
Did Sam Dastyari do anything wrong with that wine?
FIFIELD:
It’s important to give a full and clear declaration to the Senate when you receive something. The best you could say is that Senator Dastyari’s declaration was opaque. The spirit of the Register of Senators’ Interests is that you give enough detail so that people have a clear indication of what it is that you received. That’s the purpose of declaration. That’s the purpose of transparency.
EPSTEIN:
But to be clear you declare that I think, it’s $700 from some quarters and $350 from other quarters. But, you say that he should have specified the brand?
FIFIELD:
I think that would have been helpful, but more important is the issue of the $1,670 that was paid to Sam Dastyari by way of a direct and personal benefit, by a businessman in order to expunge a debt that Senator Dastyari had to the Commonwealth. That’s something that is weird.
EPSTEIN:
I’m keen to get onto the repayment of a debt but, if it’s opaque to not declare the bottle, the brand, of the wine you’re given, that’s a problem for the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, isn’t it? He’s got four bottles of wine listed. He’s named the donor and hasn’t named the precise value of the wine or the brand. So that’s the Deputy Prime Minster being opaque as well, isn’t it?
FIFIELD:
It’s always important to be as clear as you can for the purpose of the Register of Senators’ Interests. That is just good practice.
EPSTEIN:
So the Deputy Prime Minister should have specified more when he listed the four gifts of wine?
FIFIELD:
I haven’t studied the Deputy Prime Minister’s declaration of interests. I haven’t studied Senator Dastyari’s declaration of interests either. I’m just saying as a general principle it’s good to provide clear information and the most important of which is what the source of the donation was.
EPSTEIN:
Sure, and I think that the source in all the instances with both Sam Dastyari and the Deputy Prime Minister, they have named the source. What is the difference? You wanted to mention the debt. So Sam Dastyari overspent the amount he can call on the taxpayer for his travel allowance, $1,600 as you mentioned. The Chinese donor pays that money for him. What’s the difference? I mean there’s hundreds of thousands that has been spent. I think the Communist Party paid for people like Julie Bishop to go to China. There is any number of people that pay for politicians to go on trips, what’s the difference between those sorts of donations and a debt being repaid?
FIFIELD:
I have never heard of a personal debt being paid for by a business on behalf of a Member of Parliament. This is something which I think is unprecedented.
And we’ve yet to hear from Sam Dastyari what the real circumstances are. So we can only surmise, Raf. And think of this for the moment. Are we meant to believe an explanation that Sam Dastyari was sitting down doing some online banking, that he was just about to pay the Department of Finance when all of a sudden he gets a call on his mobile phone from a businessman who says ‘Hey Sam, I know this is a long shot, but I don’t suppose you’ve got an outstanding debt to the Commonwealth that you would like to be paid’?
EPSTEIN:
But that’s speculation isn’t it, Mitch Fifield? What’s the material difference? You say it’s unprecedented and I don’t know if someone’s had a debt paid back before or not. But what is the actual material difference? Isn’t it about you get something in exchange for a donation? What’s the difference between having a debt payed and any number of trips that have been paid for people on both sides of politics to go overseas? What’s the actual material difference?
FIFIELD:
I think there’s a fundamental difference between a Member of Parliament who is going to another country to learn about that country. And that might be supported by a government. Governments around the world do that. And I think that’s a good and healthy thing for Members of Parliament to get a better understanding of other countries around the world. Of their political systems. Of their economic systems. There’s a world of difference between that and a business paying the personal, private debt of a Member of Parliament. I think anyone who would be listening would see a world of difference between those two scenarios, Raf.
EPSTEIN:
I think people are just generally angry, Senator. I mean to be honest, you and I don’t know what’s in people’s minds and both sides of politics do this, but Julie Bishop, Warren Truss and George Brandis, the Communist Party paid for their trip to China in 2012. Now, I know you think that is substantially different. I’m not sure that a lot of voters think that is substantially different to Sam Dastyari having a debt paid off.
FIFIELD:
I think it is as different as can be. Raf, you have an individual Senator, who has a personal debt that they owe to the Australian Government. And that individual Senator, rather than paying that personal debt themselves, has another person – a business – pay that debt on their behalf.
I mean, in this whole area it’s not really a question of if there’s a rule or a law that’s been broken. That’s never been the test for Ministerial or Shadow Ministerial propriety. The question is: was it wise to do? In the case of Senator Dastyari, I would say no…
EPSTEIN:
Gee that’s vague and subjective isn’t it? “Was it wise to do?” –
FIFIELD:
No. Was it wise to do? Does it create a real or perceived conflict of interest? Does it open someone to being compromised? Does it satisfy community standards? Does it bring, in the case of a Minister, the Government into disrepute? Or, in the case of a Shadow Minister, does it bring the Opposition into disrepute?
EPSTEIN:
Isn’t the real problem not whether or not it was wise to do. The biggest problem is that you can drive a truck through the rules. Sam Dastyari didn’t break any rules, none. Julie Bishop hasn’t broken any rules. But there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to her division of the party from people who’ve got no business there. The problem is the rules are incredibly lax. That’s the problem.
FIFIELD:
What Labor are seeking to do is to conflate two separate issues. They’re seeking to conflate the issue of donations, and the issue of a personal benefit…
EPSTEIN:
Well maybe it’s not Labor. I’m conflating the issues, I see them as similar.
FIFIELD:
Well they’re very different. We have a system of electoral law. And all businesses should comply with electoral law as it concerns donations and declarations. And all political parties should satisfy the requirements of Australian electoral law in relation to donations.
There is a big difference between a donation being made to a political party – to the organisation of a political party – and a direct, personal benefit being paid to a Member of Parliament. Now, Labor have sought for the best part of three or four days to do a ‘bait-and-switch’, in order to try and conflate these two issues…
EPSTEIN:
That’s because they’re after tougher donation rules…
FIFIELD:
There are questions for Senator Dastyari. Now Senator Dastyari still has not answered the question: did he approach the business to seek the funding? Or did the business approach him to offer the funding? Those questions haven’t been answered. Senator Dastyari has not answered the question: were there any conditions placed upon the payment of that debt?
We’ve had about 125 words from Senator Dastyari in the Parliament. It’s not good enough for Senator Dastyari to not answer these questions. And it’s not good enough for Bill Shorten to not require his frontbencher to answer these questions.
Bill Shorten should stand Senator Dastyari down. This is a test of Bill Shorten’s leadership. If Senator Dastyari was a Minister he would have been stood down. And we shouldn’t expect lower standards of Shadow Ministers, or lower standards of Labor than is expected of the Coalition and of Ministers.
EPSTEIN:
Mitch Fifield, simple question: should there be a ban on foreign donations? Your party voted against that in 2009, would you reconsider?
FIFIELD:
Well, a few points Raf. Firstly, all businesses and all political parties should comply with the electoral law as it stands. And there always is after each election an inquiry, by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, into the conduct of the election, and any other matters which the Committee deems to be relevant for inquiry. That Committee will take submissions. It will hold hearings. And no doubt there will be a range of issues…
EPSTEIN:
That’s not really an answer. Do you support a ban on foreign donations?
FIFIELD:
As the Minister for Communications I don’t run my own independent policy on Australian electoral law. But what I can tell you and your listeners is that it is a matter that happens after each election, that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters undertakes an inquiry into the conduct of the election and any other matters relevant to Australian electoral law. So we have…
EPSTEIN:
Forgive me for interrupting again Mitch Fifield, but there’s a ton of people who are keeping an eye on China, writing about their attempts at soft power. It does appear to be a significant and different issue: Chinese involvement, Chinese businesses involvement. It does appear different to other foreign donations. Would you agree that China is – because of their power and their significant cash reserves – a different case?
FIFIELD:
It’s important that there is transparency when it comes to political donations. Which is why individual businesses and political parties should comply with Australian electoral law as it relates to donations. Now there will be – as I’ve said – an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. And they can cover any matter relevant to the election and also Australian electoral law.
EPSTEIN:
Isn’t it blatantly obvious that we need change? If quarter-of-a-million-dollar watches get handed out to people like Tony Abbott, again this happens on both sides of politics, I’m just mentioning an example from your side because I’m interviewing someone from The Liberal Party. If someone wants to hand out quarter-million-dollar watches to Tony Abbott and a host of other frontbenchers, that suggests we need a tightening, doesn’t it? Just that on its own?
FIFIELD:
There are three issues here. There’s the issue of donations to political parties. There’s the issue of gifts to Members of Parliament, which should be declared in the appropriate way. And there are well established processes for how gifts that are given to Ministers should be handled. So that Minsters don’t receive a personal benefit, they can surrender that to their Department or, they can pay the difference. So there are well established rules there.
And the third issue, which is the one that has focussed the nation’s attention over the last few days, is the issue of a personal benefit being received by a Senator, one Sam Dastyari. That is unique. It’s weird. It’s inappropriate. And Bill Shorten should stand Senator Dastyari down.
EPSTEIN:
Mitch Fifield, thank you for your time.
FIFIELD:
Thanks very much, Raf.
[ends]