Peter Dutton deserves a little sympathy as he indignantly denies any conflict of interest or impropriety over his purchases of banking shares and real estate. Many people always believe the worst of politicians, particularly if there is any suggestion of abuse of position, making money on the side, or personal enrichment. Dutton has pointed to his high ethical standards, to the fact that he has always disclosed changes in his holdings, and to the improbability of his having any advance or inside knowledge of the Rudd Government’s plans about guaranteeing banking savings at a time when he was in opposition. For some, but not all of these reasons, I believe him. But he has been such a nasty accuser over the years that I wouldn’t be surprised if some didn’t.

Dutton has asserted before that he is a paragon of high standards. After being defeated, first by Malcolm Turnbull, then by Scott Morrison in 2021, he declared that win or lose, he was the more moral man. He said it with a particular glint in the eye that hinted that neither Morrison nor Turnbull were in his class for integrity, though the public was not let in on the basis for this conclusion. That said, I have never seen him enmeshed in obvious conflict of interest in a past in which I have given him little benefit of the doubt. I place great significance on character, but I do not think that racist dog-whistling, or an apparent delight in cruelty to asylum seekers can be said to be ethical, moral or in accord with any conventional mainstream religion.

He is not the only politician whose integrity over business and investment dealings has been criticised over the years. That criticism has come from public records he has created, but merely establishing a theoretical possibility of conflict of interest, insider trading or improper dealings is not enough. I personally think it is wrong, and at the least unwise, for an MP to be a regular investor, because of the wrong impression it could cause. But that’s a standard politicians should aspire to, not one presently in place.

Standards of conduct in Australia have actually improved over time. But they still fall significantly short of standards of which parliament could be proud. That they don’t is because politicians do not seem to want it that way, for no good reason that I can think of. Thus, for example, a politician must declare a purchase of shares, as Dutton did with a 2008 purchase of bank shares at the time of the global financial crisis. But one is not required to disclose how many shares, or at what price. If subsequently, the shares, the house or other investment are sold, the fact of the sale must be disclosed, but the profit, or the change in one’s circumstances (if, say, a mortgage has been discharged) does not have to be declared. It is necessary for an intelligent judgment to be made.

The look of the thing is very important. A wise MP will avoid some behaviour not actually illegal, if only to set an example

In some cases, politicians would have made millions from a share or house transaction, such as the notorious handing out of Comalco shares to Queensland politicians in the 1960s. In other cases, a minor investment may have caused a change in net worth of less than $1000.

Anyone who thinks most politicians are venal might suspect that such a person would be very tempted to do something improper if millions were involved, but be less worried about conflict of interest if only a few thousand were at stake. Even more reason, one would think why the obligation........

© Pearls and Irritations