Sky News Live with Patricia Karvelas > Mitch Fifield, Liberal Senator for Victoria

CONTACT SENATOR FIFIELD

Click here to email me

Electorate Office
42 Florence Street
MENTONE VIC 3194

Phone: 03 9584 2455
Phone Toll Free
(Vic only): 1300 797 110

Parliament House Office
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Phone: 02 6277 7480




01-May-2017

Interview
7pm
30 April 2017

 

E & OE

PATRICIA KARVELAS:

Mitch Fifield, welcome to the studio. 

MITCH FIFIELD:

Good to be with you, Patricia. 

KARVELAS:

On the metadata breach, that was revealed by the AFP on Friday.  What are you doing to ensure that a breach like this never happens again, because this was not meant to happen to journalists’ data?  It has happened; it’s a very serious issue. 

FIFIELD:

Well, I think the positive thing here is that the Federal Police have self-reported to the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman is going to be undertaking an inquiry.  The Federal Police Commissioner gave a full account of his understanding of how this transpired. It is important that, when it comes to the metadata of journalists, it is only accessed when you have a warrant given to enable that to happen.  So, it’s important that the rules are followed –

KARVELAS:

But the fact that the rules weren’t followed and that this has happened; the journalist who it has happened to has not been told.  Shouldn’t the journalist know?  I mean, that puts all journalists under this cloud of thinking: “it could be me”

FIFIELD:

Well, look, I think the important thing is to wait for the Ombudsman to undertake their review of this incident, of the circumstances around it. The Commissioner has made clear that they are going to be improving their internal training.  I think we need to go back a step, though, and recognise that metadata is something that has been accessed by law enforcement agencies for a long time.  The changes that the Government put in place, really, were two-fold:  one was to recognise that businesses weren’t, for a range of reasons, retaining metadata for the periods of time that they used to be –

KARVELAS:

Sure, but for journalists –

FIFIELD:

So we now require it for two years; but the other important point is, there used to be around 80 law enforcement agencies who could access metadata.  That’s now come down to about 20. But you’re right, these sorts of things shouldn’t happen.  It’s a positive that the Commissioner was up front and the Ombudsman will be investigating. 

KARVELAS:

Are you prepared to look into whether the protections for journalists are strong enough? 

FIFIELD:

Well, I think the protections for journalists are very strong.  I think the requirement that there be a warrant is important –

KARVELAS:

But, clearly, police aren’t adhering to this because this shouldn’t have happened. 

FIFIELD:

Well, in this circumstance, according to the Police Commissioner, there was no ill-will involved.  It was, from what he said, a mistake.  So, let’s take a look at what the Ombudsman ultimately finds. 

KARVELAS:

Okay but you are prepared to look at it if there is a case for bigger protections for journalists because all… I mean, it’s a very chilling effect on journalists, who, as I say, don’t if it’s them, don’t know if they’re under a cloud or they’re being watched? 

FIFIELD:

Well, look, under the legislation, there are greater protections than there were previously.  But obviously, this is an area that the Parliament continually monitors. 

KARVELAS:

So you do think the Parliament should take a look, based on what the Ombudsman finds, potentially that the Government is watching this closely? 

FIFIELD:

Look, I’m not making a statement of policy.  I’m just stating a fact that this is an area that the Parliament does continually monitor. 

KARVELAS:

But, as Communications Minister, do you want to take a look at this, to make sure that journalists are protected, so there is no, I suppose, second guessing by journalists of the important work they do? 

FIFIELD:

Look, I think there are good protections.  There will, on occasion, be human error.  From what the Commissioner says, it looks like this is a case of that. 

KARVELAS:

Okay. Just on some of your portfolio issues, before we get to the politics of the day; on gambling ads during live sporting events, do you support a betting ad from five minutes before and five minutes after a game begins?  Is that something you think might be a good idea?  I know it’s on the table. 

FIFIELD:

Well, at the moment, what we have in Australia is a code-based system of protection, when it come gambling advertising.  The industry will consult on a code. It will be registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. And the Code, as it stands, essentially says that you can’t have gambling ads in programming which is directed at children.  There are certain carve-outs from that around sport and current affairs and news.  We’re mindful, as a Government, that there is community concern about the prevalence of gambling advertising, particularly in sport.  It’s something that parents are concerned about and we’re taking a look at it. 

KARVELAS:

Do you think a buffer before and after, as well, though, should be perhaps part of that? 

FIFIELD:

Well, look, the –

KARVELAS:

Because, obviously, you know, it’s not just when the game starts that you’re watching.  There is a lead-up and after; after the fact as well. 

FIFIELD:

Well, we’re mindful of the community view in this area.  We’re taking a look.  I can’t tell you what the end result will be –

KARVELAS:

What’s your instinct?  Are you really – 

FIFIELD:

But there are a range of different ways that you could further enhance the protections for kids. 

KARVELAS:

But they will be beefed up?  Is that definitely something that you think needs to happen? 

FIFIELD:

Look, it’s an area that we’re taking a look at and I can’t announce something –

KARVELAS:

I know you’re not going to announce it but you can give me an indication of just where you’re moving, based on what you have determined so far. 

FIFIELD:

Well we obviously, consult closely with the industry. We talk to the sporting codes as well.  We also talk to the gaming operators themselves.  So, we’re considering and have considered what they’ve put to us and we’ll have something to say in future. 

KARVELAS:

How about licence fee cuts?  I mean, we’ve heard a lot about them.  Is that a done deal?  Can we expect that in the Government, in the Budget rather? 

FIFIELD:

Well licence fees, for those members of your audience who probably aren’t au fait with this.  Because it’s not something we sit up in bed thinking about, or no-one other than me and those who work in TV.  Licence fees were introduced in the late ‘50s/early ‘60s.  Essentially a super profits tax of its time.  There wasn’t any competition for the electronic media so they were in a good position to make good profits. Obviously, there’s massive competition now.  So as a result, successive governments have reduced licence fees. When Stephen Conroy was Comms Minister, he reduced licence fees. I reduced licence fees by 25% in the last Budget.  I think, between him and me, we’ve reduced licence fees by about 62.5% since 2013.  And we announced last Budget that we would examine further licence fee cuts in the context of this Budget.  And it’s something we’re looking at. 

KARVELAS:

Okay, do you think the case has been made for further cuts? 

FIFIELD:

Well, we’ve demonstrated already that we think there was a case for cuts – 25% cut in the last Budget.  We said we’d look at it again in the context of this Budget.  And that’s what we’re doing. 

KARVELAS:

Okay, how about the Anti-siphoning List – trimming that list – is that very much on the cards? 

FIFIELD:

Well, it’s a proposition that is routinely raised by subscription television and it’s something that’s constantly under review.  I think it’d be a mistake to see the Anti-siphoning List as something that had always been set in stone.  Over time, there are events that go onto the list and events that come off the list. 

KARVELAS:

Okay ongoing, but is this something immediate that you’re looking at now?

FIFIELD:

Well it’s a petition that is always strongly made to us by subscription TV.

KARVELAS:

Sometimes it’s strongly made, and you don’t strongly listen. Are you strongly listening this time?

FIFIELD:

Well we always listen.

KARVELAS:

You don’t always listen.

FIFIELD:

We always listen.  We don’t always agree with the proposition that’s put to us. We always listen –

KARVELAS:

Are you more likely to agree? Are you convinced? Are you convinced it needs a reduction?

FIFIELD:

Look the Anti-siphoning List is something that is governed by – I think – a lot of myths. I think there’s a bit of misapprehension that the Anti-siphoning List guarantees that the events on the list must be broadcast on free-to-air.  It doesn’t. It gives free-to-air the first go. The Anti-siphoning List doesn’t even mandate that if free-to-air have those rights, that they’ve got to broadcast them. And also, it doesn’t prevent free-to-air from onselling those to subscription TV. So a lot of myths around the Anti-siphoning List.  We’re having strong views put to us about it.  And we’ll consider those.

KARVELAS:

Just another question in your portfolio area: something you were asked about, but haven’t spoken about on camera and that’s Yassmin Abdel-Magied and her Facebook post. She later apologised as being quite a strong reaction to it. I know Barnaby Joyce said she should be sacked off the ABC, for instance. Where she is a very much part-time, I don’t think she even has a long-term contract at the ABC. Do you think she should be sacked, or is that an over-reaction?

FIFIELD:

Well the first point is I was appalled by what she posted on Anzac Day. Anzac Day is a time of national reflection. It’s important that that is respected, and that we take the time to pause and think about the service that men and women in uniform have rendered, and the sacrifices that they make. And on the day, I said that I thought it was a crude attempt to politicising a day of national reflection. For my part, I recognise that the ABC has its independence. Who they choose to take on board as their presenters, is a matter for them. But if I was in charge of a broadcasting organisation, let me be clear: she’s not someone I’d be hiring.     

KARVELAS:

Okay, but she apologised straight away. I wonder what room there is for people to retract, to show contrition, to show that they went too far, in our culture. I mean a broader question, you know, I see these Facebook and Twitter statements from lots of people that have been very inappropriate; and when people show they’re sorry, is that good enough? 

FIFIELD:

Well I think if you’re engaged by the national public broadcaster, whether that be as a full-time employee, or as someone who part-time presents at the weekend – as in her case – you have a particular duty of care.  And you especially have a duty of care when it comes to Anzac Day. And although she was not speaking on behalf of the ABC, nevertheless, because she does work for the ABC, that reflects on the ABC as an organisation. And I think that’s a great pity, that there is that reflection on the ABC. And it’s important that the ABC absolutely distances themselves from what she said.

KARVELAS:

Ok, on a few other issues, because that story’s quite old now, there’s a few newer issues; like for instance Kelly O’Dwyer, one of your colleagues, on maternity leave, but facing a hit. Basically people, you know, trying to destabilise and pull her out of her seat. What’s going on in the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party?

FIFIELD:

Well I don’t think what you saw is representative of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. In fact, I’m not even sure that the individuals involved in that are members of the Party. Look, it was unseemly. Kelly’s a terrific colleague; she’s doing a great job as Minister -

KARVELAS:

Why is she getting all the blame for this, when it was a whole Government decision?

FIFIELD:

Well look, everyone in Government owns our superannuation policy. Kelly has been a fine minister. I’m really happy and excited for her, that she and Jon have had their second kid. And you know, let’s give them a bit of space.  Let them enjoy this time in their life. I think Kelly has handled this particular incident with a very dignified silence, which is appropriate. 

KARVELAS:

Yeah I don’t imagine it would’ve been very easy. Just a couple of issues on stories of the day; GST review is on the cards, a Productivity Commission review – I think 2018 is the day where it reports – are you just buying yourselves some more time?

FIFIELD:

No not at all. I mean the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and the Finance Minister have very much been on the front foot when it comes to the issue of GST and distribution. The PM – I think it was back in August – announced that the Council of Australian Governments would be looking at the concept of a ‘floor’ below which your share couldn’t go below. And that was very much in the context of Western Australia. Western Australia’s share is growing over time, when that goes above a particular threshold then that’s something that the Council of Australian Governments can look at. Separate to that is what the Treasurer has announced today, which is the Productivity Commission inquiring into horizontal fiscal equalisation – basically, the sharing of the GST. And this is doing it through the prism of how that works to support, or otherwise, productivity and growth. Because you can have some perversities in the particular arrangements; where if you have a particular jurisdiction that reforms in an area, is efficient in an area, they can sometimes through the formulas, actually be penalised as a result of being more efficient. So you want to make sure you have the right incentives, for the right behaviours –      

KARVELAS:

Okay, you do, but at the end of this process, are you really prepared to take money away from a state like New South Wales and have the fight? Because there’re Premiers that are very grumpy right now, this is a huge fight. Are you willing to have this fight to give money to WA?

FIFIELD:

Well I think it’s appropriate.  The GST has been in place since 2000. The current formulas have been around since then.  So let’s take a look and make sure that the grants system, sorry the Grants Commission, and the formula it oversights is actually working to support productivity and growth.  That’s a good thing.  

KARVELAS:

Mitch Fifield thanks for coming in on a Sunday night. 

FIFIELD:

Good to be with you.

[ends]