SARAH FERGUSON: The Opposition Leader is being questioned about banking shares he purchased during the global financial crisis.
Earlier this week, news.com reported that Peter Dutton bought shares in several big banks shortly before the Labor government announced a major funding boost for the banks in 2009.
Today Mr Dutton denied any wrongdoing.
PETER DUTTON, OPPOSITION LEADER: I’ve not received any information that has influenced any share transaction, either selling or buying, that I’ve made or the purchase of any property or other asset or other asset class or type, where I’ve been privy to any information other than what is publicly available.
SARAH FERGUSON: Andrew Charlton is a Labor MP and in 2009 he was an economic adviser to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He joined me earlier
Andrew Charlton, welcome to 7.30
ANDREW CHARLTON, LABOR MP: Thank you.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now you were an advisor to the Rudd government during the global financial crisis. First of all, your reaction when you when you learnt that Peter Dutton had bought and sold bank shares during the crisis.
ANDREW CHARLTON: My jaw fell to the floor.
SARAH FERGUSON: Why?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Because I was there. I was there at that time, and I saw the Australian economy on fire. I saw the Australian share market fall by more than 60 per cent destroying wealth for millions of Australians.
And most importantly, I saw every Australian political leader, the government, the opposition, public servants working every single day tirelessly to save Australia and save Australians.
But what we now know is that there was one political leader who was not focused on the national interest. That political leader was focused on his own financial interest, and he admitted that today.
SARAH FERGUSON: Well, what he said today was a lot of astute investors would have bought bank shares at that time because they saw value in the shares. Obviously, I saw value. So why is this not just the story of an astute investor?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Because this is a time when the Australian economy is crumbling around us. Everybody is completely focused. Public servants are working 20 hours a day to save the Australian economy.
SARAH FERGUSON: But Peter Dutton wasn’t in a financial portfolio, shadow financial portfolio.
ANDREW CHARLTON: No, but Malcolm Turnbull, the other Coalition leaders were totally focused on thinking about what was the right thing for Australia and Australians and Peter Dutton is focused at that time on making money for himself.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now just a question. Were astute investors buying bank shares at that time in question, which is in the in the general term we’re talking about, it’s late 2008 very early, 2009.
ANDREW CHARLTON: Well, Sarah, one of the transactions occurred on the 23rd of January, 2009 and let me tell you three things about that day.
The first thing is that Australian bank shares had been in free fall. In fact, they hit their lowest level in many years on that day.
The second thing that day is that the Australian Government was preparing a bank bailout, $4 billion that would cause those bank shares, which had been falling, to start rising and give confidence back to the market about Australia’s banks.
Now there were four stocks on the ASX that were going to massively benefit from that announcement the next day.
The third thing that happened on that day is that Peter Dutton updated his register of interests to say that he had bought three of those four shares that were about to benefit from that program being announced the next day.
SARAH FERGUSON: How can we be sure about the timeline of the purchase of those shares? As you say, that’s on the 23rd of January, the day before the announcement of that particular financial vehicle that the government is about to announce? How can we be sure they were recent and therefore tied to that or potentially tied to that forthcoming event?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Well, these are questions for Peter Dutton to explain, but what we do know is that he had updated his register of interest just four days before, so it would seem unlikely that he had made those transactions more than four days before that day.
SARAH FERGUSON: Sure, but the government has waded into this and of course, you’re here, I want to ask you this, are you actually suggesting that Peter Dutton has profited from some form of insider trading?
ANDREW CHARLTON: What I’m suggesting is that at a time of national crisis, when every Australian leader was focused on the national interest, he was focused on making money, he was focused on his own interests.
And Sarah that is not in dispute anymore, he admitted that today, he defended that today. What we don’t know, and what only Peter Dutton can know is what information he had when he made those trades, and that’s why he needs to release information about what was going on in shadow cabinet, release those minutes.
What correspondence was he having with officials from the Treasury where he’d been assistant treasurer recently. What correspondence did he have with executives at the Australian banks who he had strong relationships with from his time at Treasury?
Peter Dutton needs to release that information, and let me say this, Sarah, if these trades had been done by an Australian public servant, if they had been done by an Australian corporate executive in this way, at this time, that public servant or that executive would have extremely serious scrutiny placed on them.
They would have to provide explanations and documents, and it would not be acceptable for them to do what Peter Dutton thought he could do today, which is dismiss this with a single word, without providing any information.
SARAH FERGUSON: How tightly held was the information that this particular government measure, that was going to be made available to help the commercial sector. How tightly held was that information? How likely is it that Peter Dutton knew that?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Well, there are a number of different government measures over this period.
The one that was announced the day after Peter Dutton updated his register of interest, saying that he was buying three Australian bank shares, that was called the Australian Business Investment Partnership. It was effectively a bailout of the banks, and it was something that the Australian Government had worked on in partnership with each of the four banks.
So, it was something that quite a quite a number of people would have had some knowledge of.
SARAH FERGUSON: You said earlier on that your jaw dropped when you learnt this piece of information. When did you learn it?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I learned it when I saw the information that had come out, that had come out in relation to his register of interest.
SARAH FERGUSON: You mean this week?
ANDREW CHARLTON: No, before this week, I was made aware of it.
SARAH FERGUSON: By whom?
ANDREW CHARLTON: By the Prime Minister’s office, who had been looking at it.
SARAH FERGUSON: So how long had the Prime Minister’s office been looking at it?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I do know is that Peter Dutton has built his opposition leadership of accusations and criticism, and now for the first time, he is getting those questions coming at him, and he’s unable to answer them
SARAH FERGUSON: Yes, but let’s understand also what we’re looking at here. What you’re saying is the government had access to this information, was in possession of, that Anthony Albanese was in possession of this information before it was, before it appeared in the media?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Absolutely. I mean, it is the government’s job at a time when we’re all looking at register of members interests to look at this information.
SARAH FERGUSON: Does that suggest that this is, as the Opposition says, an attempt to slur Peter Dutton, because clearly, when the government had the information, they didn’t release it straight away. If it was of such enormous ethical importance, as you suggest, why not release it that day? Why save it up?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I’m not sure it was saved up at all. I think it was released promptly.
SARAH FERGUSON: Well, how promptly? When did you become aware of it?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Reasonably shortly before it was made available.
SARAH FERGUSON: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, Mr. Charlton, but what’s reasonably?
ANDREW CHARLTON: Very happy to answer this question, it would have been a matter of days or weeks.
SARAH FERGUSON: Days or weeks, so as long ago as seven days ago.
ANDREW CHARLTON: Could have been more than seven days ago.
SARAH FERGUSON: More than seven days ago. So the government has been sitting on this piece of information for at least a week, but could be more.
ANDREW CHARLTON: I’m not sure the government was sitting on it. I’m not sure how the information flowed, but certainly this was something that, you know we were all looking at in relation to the members’ interests,
SARAH FERGUSON: Let’s understand what we’re looking at here. You’ve raised very serious questions about Peter Dutton. You said Peter Dutton has questions to answer, but doesn’t the government also have questions to answer about the way it handles information, the way it handles itself.
How long have they been sitting on this information about Peter Dutton choosing a moment to release it that presumably, in their view, is the most destructive it can be for the Leader of the Opposition.
ANDREW CHARLTON: I’m not sure that’s the case at all, Sarah. I’m honestly not sure that this is a case of the government sitting on information at all.
I mean, if it’s a matter of seven days, of course this information deserves scrutiny. It deserves to be looked at. If it was longer than that, it deserves scrutiny.
I don’t think it was a case of sitting on this for a long period of time in order to target it. I think this is a very serious question that the Opposition Leader needs to answer.
It’s an important piece of information for Australians to think about as they head to the election, and that information is appropriate to be analysed, to be carefully checked, and then to be provided to the Australian people.
SARAH FERGUSON: The only thing I would say is that, on the face of it, it’s a relatively simple it’s a relatively simple set of questions. There’s a series of updates to his share registry. There’s not a great deal of checking that needs to go on. So why hang on to it?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I’m not sure it was, it was hung on to for a long time, Sarah, I’m not sure that’s the case at all.
SARAH FERGUSON: We’ll put that question to the Prime Minister. I wonder, does this attack, does this series of questions posed to Peter Dutton in this way, with a delay, suggest that there’s a dirty campaign coming?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I’m not sure there was a delay of consequence, Sarah, as you suggested, in relation to timing, I think there’s information that needs to be carefully checked.
You know what I would say, as I said before, is that Peter Dutton has built his opposition leadership on mudslinging, on criticisms and on accusations, and the first time he gets questions, he cannot answer them, and he tries to dismiss them with a single word.
These are very legitimate questions that Australians would want to know the answer to.
SARAH FERGUSON: Just a question about you. Peter Dutton was campaigning in your electorate today, a marginal electorate. Is it politically opportune for you to bring this up today?
ANDREW CHARLTON: I don’t think so. My reaction is that I was there at a time when every Australian public servant was working incredibly hard to save Australia and save the Australian economy, and when I saw that somebody had been trading Australian bank shares during a banking crisis, as I said to you, I was shocked.
SARAH FERGUSON: Andrew Chalton, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
ANDREW CHARLTON: Thank you very much.
SARAH FERGUSON: The Australian and New Zealand navies are closely tracking the Chinese flotilla that moved along the coast of Tasmania yesterday.
Opposition Senator James Paterson questioned Defence officials in senate estimates today about the ships and the live fire incident.
Senator Paterson, welcome to 7.30.
JAMES PATERSON, SHADOW MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you for having me.
SARAH FERGUSON: We now know that Peter Dutton was trading bank shares at the height of the global financial crisis, when the Australian banking system teetered on the brink of collapse. Are you comfortable with that?
JAMES PATERSON: Sarah, the Labor Party started this year and their dirt unit with a grubby personal attack on Kirilly Dutton, Peter’s wife, and they’ve continued in the same vein. And the reason for that is because they’re very little positive to say about their own achievements over the last two and a half years, let alone their agenda for the next three years.
I’m entirely comfortable with the way in which Peter Dutton has dealt with this. He has nothing to hide. He’s been completely transparent.
He was not privy to any market sensitive information as a shadow minister in opposition about the Rudd government’s plans.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now we also just learned from Andrew Charlton that the government was sitting on the information, according to Andrew Charlton, for a matter of days or weeks. Should they have raised it then?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, it reflects on the Labor Party that they are spending taxpayers’ money in a dirt unit digging up 16 year old share trades in order to dish it out on Peter Dutton in the lead up to an election, rather than focusing on the problems that Australians are concerned about in their own lives, including the very pressing problems of the cost-of-living, but also community safety and national security.
SARAH FERGUSON: I want to move to the questions surrounding the Chinese flotillas presence on the coast of Australia over recent days. Do we know exactly what the purpose is of that flotilla’s presence?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, I asked that question to senior Defence officials today, and they were reluctant to speculate, which is understandable, but they did say that this was reckless, they did say it was disruptive, and they did say it was unprecedented, and I think it’s also very clear, in my own view, that it’s provocative and it’s designed to send a message to Australia.
It’s designed to send a message about the reach and the power and the capability of the Chinese Defence Forces, that they can come all the way down our east coast, that they’re willing to exercise in international waters just off our coast, and that is very clearly a message that they want us to hear.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now clearly at the same time, Australia operates in the Taiwan Strait, very close to China. Are we in danger of hypocrisy in overreacting to what happened with the Chinese ships?
JAMES PATERSON: I’ve heard the Prime Minister make that comparison, and I think, frankly, that’s a slur on the professionalism of the patriotic and professional and dedicated men and women in the Australian Defence Force. We do not conduct ourselves like this.
SARAH FERGUSON: I think, sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt you, Senator, it’s just, I think I’m talking to the kind of political reaction, rather than any commentary on the Navy itself. I’m talking about the discussion of what the Chinese were doing and why.
JAMES PATERSON: Yes, and you also asked whether there’s hypocrisy here compared to our behaviour in the South China Sea. And I think it’s really important to step out for your viewers, the differences in the way we behave compared to how China behaves, which demonstrates we’re not being hypocritical.
So, I addressed this with the ADF today. They made it very clear that when they conduct exercises like this in international waters, they do so with at least 24 hours’ notice, if not 48 hours’ notice, that they don’t do so in a way which is disruptive to commercial airlines.
They don’t do it under international civilian flight paths. They don’t do it in a way that disrupts maritime trade and when we do operations like this, we do so in a way that’s entirely consistent with international law and best practice.
Now the same cannot be said for China. They did not give us notice at all, it turns out, not even adequate notice. They did do it under a flight path that required 49 aircraft to divert themselves for the safety of the passengers on board, and they did so in a way that was extremely reckless and provocative.
SARAH FERGUSON: That’s in relation to the live firing incident but in relation to the flotilla they have been inside Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Don’t we sail inside China’s exclusive economic zone including in the Taiwan Strait?
JAMES PATERSON: I’m not aware of anyone who suggested that China doesn’t have a right to navigate international waters. Of course, they have a right to do that, but I think we should reflect on the differences between the Tasman Sea and the South China Sea.
The Tasman Sea is a very remote part of the world. It’s significant really only to Australia and New Zealand. It is not a significant trade route. There are no disputed features. There are no contested international legal claims.
The South China Sea is very different. It is a waterway which is significant from a trade point of view for all nations, including Australia. There are disputed features that the Chinese government has established in the South China Sea, and they have made claims which we believe are not consistent with international law.
And so, our purpose of being in the South China Sea, I think, frankly, is much more clearly demonstrated and obvious than their purpose for being in the Tasman Sea.
SARAH FERGUSON: And as you say, we don’t yet know exactly the purpose but presumably that will become clearer as whatever exercise this is concludes.
JAMES PATERSON: It may or it may not. This may be all that we ever know about this. We do not know, for example, if a nuclear submarine has accompanied the task group while it’s in the region. We don’t know what their ultimate, final destination or final pathway is, and that will be important to know.
SARAH FERGUSON: And what would be the significance of the flotilla being accompanied by a nuclear-powered submarine?
JAMES PATERSON: What’s the most capable military capability that most modern militaries can put to field, can put to sea. It is a formidable platform for collecting intelligence.
It is a formidable platform for delivering effects, targeted, strategic effects, and it would demonstrate the seriousness with which China has taken this task group. It would demonstrate it’s even more capable than what we understand already.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, will the Opposition propose cutting Australia’s overseas aid budget to free up money for an increased defence spending budget above the current spending levels.
JAMES PATERSON: I don’t want to disappoint you, Sarah, but I’m not going to reveal our budget, our election costings tonight on your program. We will make those disclosures in the usual way at the usual time.
SARAH FERGUSON: But clearly, I’m asking the question because that’s what’s happening. That’s what’s happened in the UK overnight. You know, in some ways the Trump effect but is it something that will be under consideration by the Opposition?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, I think it is very significant that the Starmer government has committed to 2.5 per cent of GDP expenditure.
Our government, a year ago, promised to 2.4 per cent of GDP expenditure, although by the end of the decade, by the mid-2030s, and today in Senate estimates, they reveal that has already been revised down to 2.33 per cent of GDP.
I hardly think today and this time, in this strategic environment, is a time to be reducing our ambition for defence expenditure, and we will have to make difficult decisions to prioritise defence spending if we want to deter conflict in our region.
SARAH FERGUSON: So that’s an open question at the moment about where the money is coming from.
JAMES PATERSON: We will have more to say about where all our policies will be funded, including our commitments to increase defence spending.
SARAH FERGUSON: Senator Patterson, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
JAMES PATERSON: Thank you.
