Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I can see he is happy about that. I refer the Prime Minister to his confirmation that in December last year his office instructed Senator Santoro to omit the phrase ‘share trading’ from his register of interests. Did Senator Santoro or the Prime Minister’s office initiate the discussion about the description of Senator Santoro’s share activity?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I indicated yesterday—but, if I did not, I do so today—that the contact was initiated by my office. It was initiated by Mr Tony Nutt, then serving as principal private secretary, now my chief of staff. It was initiated because, on examination of the assets on the register of pecuniary interests put there by the senator, it was clear, given the relatively small number of share investments referred to in the return, that they did not amount to trading and that therefore trading was a misdescription. That is the reason why Mr Nutt made the inquiry. In fact, I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is querying this. I would have thought that evidence that this transpired indicated that a very careful watch was being kept, which is absolutely contrary—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order!

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyway, let me continue with the narrative. Mr Nutt got in touch with the senator’s office and said: ‘Look, I’ve had a look at the senator’s return, and it’s obvious from the number of investments listed that that doesn’t amount to trading. It is a misdescription and you shouldn’t give the description of “trading” to something that manifestly does not amount to trading.’ And he also, so I am told, said to his equivalent in the senator’s office, to whom he spoke, ‘You’d better check with the minister as to whether the return accurately depicts the situation, and if it does then it seems to me’—and I think this was a reasonable conclusion drawn by Mr Nutt-, doing his job—‘that the description “trading” is inaccurate because of the limited number of investments and that another description would be more appropriate.’ I think Mr Nutt was doing his job. When he looked at the return—and this does rather illustrate the point—as it then was, it did not show the 72 trades.

I know that the dark, sinister mind of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in these matters will be saying that somehow or other we knew. The truth, let me say it again for the record, is we did not know about those 72 investments until a few days ago. I think what Mr Nutt did back in December was entirely appropriate. And I think the fact that he sought and obtained through the then minister’s chief of staff or relevant adviser an assurance that the register accurately depicted the situation is far from being evidence of some cover-up, conspiracy or failure by my office—quite the reverse.