Stuart Robert must answer questions to be accountable: Labor and Greens demand details

This is part eight in a series. You can find the full series here.

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has called for Employment Minister Stuart Robert to provide answers in response to Crikey’s investigation into Robert’s blind trust.

“Specifically, he must reveal whether his investments are being controlled by people who have a financial interest in the matters that the minister is responsible for,” Dreyfus told Crikey.

“If Mr Robert is unable to do this, he will confirm these financial arrangements are a sham.”

Dreyfus’ call has been backed by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, who has told Crikey that Robert should say who is managing the assets secreted from public view in a blind trust. 

As Crikey reveals today, a series of share trades Robert made in 2018 in mining company Atlas Iron appear to have delivered a windfall profit over a period of five months. 

Crikey is not alleging any wrongdoing. The point is that where a minister of the crown has a blind trust, the public has a right to know of the bona fides of the arrangement — including who is administering the trust — so there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest.

The developments come as federal Parliament’s privileges committee, which is responsible for members’ declarations of pecuniary interests, considers a complaint on the blind trust arrangements of former attorney-general Christian Porter.

Turnbull: the blind trust is “not acceptable in public life”

There is a popular misconception that former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull placed his assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest when he was a member of Parliament. 

He didn’t. In fact he disclosed them all in what is, arguably, the declaration to end all declarations.

There for public consumption on the federal Parliament website it sits: page after page of private and public companies held in the name of Malcolm Turnbull, Lucy Turnbull (separately and together) as well superannuation fund investments, managed funds and bonds. The list goes on. Turnbull even added a note about intra-group loans.

Turnbull’s level of disclosure is in sharp contrast to Robert, who has presented the Australian public with, essentially, a blank page when it comes to disclosing his assets. As we’ve reported this week, Robert’s share and property investments are now in a blind trust which has no name, no address and no detail on who manages it. 

Turnbull has, in any case, made it clear that he doesn’t believe that blind trusts work — a view held by integrity experts as well. 

“With a typical blind trust you know where the money came from,” Turnbull tweeted earlier this year. “It is contributed by the beneficiary on the basis that the trustee then invests it in assets without reference to the beneficiary who is ‘blind’ as to how their money is invested.

“I don’t think that is acceptable in public life.”

Robert may have nothing to hide, but as it stands the public must take it on trust that he is abiding by the prime minister’s ministerial standards. One problem, as we’ve reported, is that Morrison previously opposed an inquiry into Robert’s dealings with a Liberal Party donor, though that inquiry led directly to Robert having to leave the Turnbull ministry.

Calls for Robert to reveal who runs his blind trust

Dreyfus’ call for Robert to provide answers follows revelations in Crikey that Gold Coast entrepreneur John Margerison was a business partner of Robert’s before Robert was elevated to the ministry in late 2018. Margerison held business interests in disability services at a time overlapping with Robert’s tenure as minister for the NDIS 2019-21.

“The entire purpose of the [interests] register and, in particular, the additional requirements for ministers, is the avoidance of conflict of interest,” Dreyfus said. 

Dreyfus has experience with Robert’s conflict of interest problems, having led Labor’s prosecution of Robert in 2016 when it was revealed Robert had travelled to China with a major Liberal donor while assistant defence minister. 

“Stuart Robert must answer basic questions about his financial arrangements and demonstrate that his blind trust arrangements have avoided any conflict of interest,” he said.

Senator Waters also demanded that Robert come clean on who is managing his assets.

“Politicians, especially ministers, should be absolutely upfront about their interests and any potential conflicts. At the very least, minister Robert should reveal who is managing his secret investments,” she said. 

“Public trust in politics has plummeted after years of rorts, scandals and blatant deals for mates. No one believes that Morrison government ministers make decisions in the public interest. The public have a right to know who is influencing those decisions — who are ministers meeting with, who’s donating to them, and what do they stand to gain? 

“A robust and transparent register of interests is critical, as is tougher donation disclosure and an enforceable code of conduct,” she said.

Will the privileges committees step up?

Waters told Crikey that it falls now to the privileges committees of both houses of Parliament to strengthen the rules “so the community can easily see who’s influencing who”.

What hope of that happening?

The Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests has 11 members — five Liberal MPs, one National and five Labor. Its remit includes what information MPs need to provide in the register, and also possible changes to any code of conduct adopted by the House. In that respect it has an important role to play in ensuring public accountability. 

Crikey contacted committee chair Liberal MP Russell Broadbent as well as deputy chair Labor MP Patrick Gorman about the adequacy of Robert’s blind trust arrangements. We asked if it would help accountability if a member of Parliament were required to give details of who manages their blind trust, as occurs in other parliaments in Australia. Neither Broadbent nor Gorman were able to comment.

We do have one clear guide, though, to the thinking of the government.

Last month Defence Minister Peter Dutton, as the leader of the House, wrote to the privileges committee on the topic of Porter and his refusal to declare who had donated large amounts of money to a trust fund for legal costs against the ABC. 

Porter claimed he had met the prime minister’s ministerial standards in keeping the funds in a form of blind trust in which, he said, the identity of donors was kept secret from him. Dutton’s letter asked the committee to clarify the “differing interpretations” of what members needed to declare. He also introduced questions about crowd-funding of legal actions, apparently aimed at Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young who had crowdfunded an action. 

Dutton’s intervention was, in short, a diversion from the real issue at hand: the public’s right to have transparent on who is funding their parliamentarians.

Next: Stuart Robert and the share trade that delivered a windfall — and raised questions