Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak under standing order 75 on 'the need for a royal commissioner to appear to be unprejudiced and impartial'. Just last week, Commissioner Heydon accepted an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser, the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture, as we have heard. I think, first, it is interesting that the exchange of emails was between Commissioner Heydon's office and Mr Gregory Burton, who, I might add, is widely tipped to be the next Liberal candidate for Mackellar. On the email to Commissioner Heydon from Gregory Burton, he reaffirmed the commissioner's knowledge that this was a Liberal Party function of the Liberal Party lawyers professional branch. This was made clear to Commissioner Heydon by the organisers of the fundraiser. Second, when the commissioner publicly withdrew from the invitation after The Sydney Morning Herald acquired the Liberal Party branded advertisement for the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture, the commissioner claimed that he had 'overlooked' the fact that this was a Liberal event.

The facts are that Commissioner Dyson Heydon is undisputedly one of Australia's leading legal minds, and he has enjoyed an esteemed legal career, having had the honour of serving as Justice of the High Court of Australia. When you look at the correspondence between Gregory Burton and the commissioner's office, it shows that he either had or should have had full knowledge of the event's being of a political affiliation, and at best he ought to have known, when you look at the email. To say that he, as a former High Court justice, 'overlooked' this I think stretches the imagination.

The flyer had a Liberal Party logo on the back, and it had a photo of the commissioner and a photo of Sir Garfield Barwick. On the back of that, it had a form to fill out to pay for tickets, to be directed to the Liberal Party. It even allowed you to make donations to the event, to the Liberal Party, even if you did not want to attend. The flyer and the correspondence were clear.

This royal commission is just now showing itself for what the Prime Minister intended it to be: a taxpayer funded political exercise to go after the Prime Minister's opponents.

I think the most interesting revelation out of this is another candid display of the government's hypocrisy. Let's go back as early as January this year. We had the government and Senator Brandis in a war of words with the Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Gillian Triggs. I quote Senator Brandis on 11 January:

… Professor Triggs' decision to delay holding an inquiry into the issue of children in detention … can only be interpreted, and has been interpreted by many, many people in Australia, as an act that looked partisan.

However, this became much more serious when Senator Brandis called for Professor Triggs's resignation as Human Rights Commissioner. Senator Brandis said:

The position is, I'm sorry to say, that the Government has lost confidence in Professor Triggs.

Senator Brandis was criticised for attacking Professor Triggs. He defended the concept of statutory independence of the Human Rights Commission:

Of course, in most respects the commission is independent—and it is important that it should be so. That independence protects, among other things, the exercise of its powers of inquiry and report …

He went further again. In an opinion piece in The Australian, Senator Brandis goes further:

As I have said many times, an institution such as the Human Rights Commission must be like Caesar's wife. Given that its functions require it, on occasions, to criticise the government of the day, it is absolutely critical to its credibility that it should have an unblemished reputation for freedom from political bias.

…   …   …

In a democracy, it is not character assassination to call a public official to account or to subject their performance to public scrutiny. That applies to the Human Rights Commission as much as to any other executive agency.

So let's not have this debate from those opposite, saying we should not criticise, we should not examine and we should not look. It is entirely appropriate, under Senator Brandis's own hand.

I do not know if Senator Brandis's memory has failed him, but this seems strangely similar to what is playing out now with Commissioner Heydon: (1) we have an independent statutory officer, Commissioner Dyson Heydon; and (2) we have an act that looks partisan, the acceptance of an invitation to speak at a New South Wales Liberal Party fundraiser. There are some serious questions to ask of this government in respect of that: (1) why is the government now jumping to the defence of Commissioner Heydon but asking Professor Triggs to resign; (2) how does Commissioner Heydon still have this government's confidence; and (3) how can the Prime Minister and Senator Brandis now say that the act of Commissioner Heydon accepting an invitation from the New South Wales Liberal Party to attend a fundraiser was not partisan? But let me help Senator Brandis—I am sure he would not particularly want me to—because I think the answer is quite simple. On the one hand, we have a statutory officer who is an open critic of the government, so of course the government must relentlessly accuse Professor Triggs of bias and demand her resignation after she released a report unfavourable to the government. On the other hand, we have the head of the government's politically motivated inquiry into its enemies, so of course the Prime Minister will honourably defend Commissioner Heydon and assure the Australian people that his report will be unbiased and unprejudiced. I think it is called 'hypocrisy'.

When we turn to the PM's judgement in this, this again raises significant doubt over the Prime Minister's judgement. He has pushed unfounded criticism of the Human Rights Commissioner on the matter of bias. He has defended the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose bias was arrogant and intentional, as was clear to every Australian watching question time. Now he defends clear bias on the part of the head of this royal commission into his political enemies. This is a person who should not be Prime Minister. This person is struggling to maintain even the confidence of his own colleagues, but I can say to you, Mr President, he is struggling also to maintain the confidence of the Australian people.

The question is not direct bias; the question is really apprehended bias. But the question that must also must be addressed is: how can the Attorney General still say the royal commission is truly independent and free from bias? It is a question that the Attorney-General must and should answer. In an address at the opening of the G20 Anti-Corruption Roundtable on 28 February 2014 in Sydney, Senator Brandis affirmed the concept of judicial independence:

An effective, independent and impartial judiciary is an essential part of any modern system of governance.

I would like the record to reflect that I agree with Senator Brandis. The judiciary must be independent and impartial, and it must appear so and be perceived to be so. Dyson Heydon has to make decisions on admission of evidence before the commission and incorporation of evidence in the final report of the commission. Justice Dyson Heydon accepting an invitation to speak at a New South Wales Liberal fundraiser whilst commissioner of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption does amount, I think, to either the perception or a reasonable apprehension of bias

There are significant problems with the royal commission. There are significant problems with the way the commissioner has acted towards witnesses. Further to that, in his response to Mr Burton the commissioner made clear that he would be willing to attend such an event as a speaker after he was no longer royal commissioner. It shows, I think, that there is some association between the commissioner and a political party, namely the Liberal Party. He was aware there was a conflict of interest at the time he was invited, he accepted the invitation, and any fair-minded person would say that amounts to a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is even quite possible that it could be viewed as something further.

What makes this event even worse is that the Australian taxpayer is footing the bill for this. The commission was meant to wind up and have a report issued in October; however, conveniently for the government the reporting period was extended even further, to the end of this year, and $80 million of taxpayers' money is now being spent on a witch-hunt.