Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance, the need for a royal commissioner to appear to be unprejudiced and impartial. Is it any wonder that the Abbott government is so sensitive to this issue of the royal commission and the role of Mr Heydon as the royal commissioner? It is very obvious that he was invited to a Liberal Party fundraiser. Any fair-minded person who looks at that invitation can see for themselves that it was and is a Liberal Party fundraiser, with funds going to two state campaigns. It has the Liberal Party logo all over it, and Mr Heydon accepted an invitation to speak at that Liberal fundraising event. Those are the facts and they cannot be disputed.

The facts are there, and that is why those opposite in the Abbott government are so incredibly sensitive to this matter and will put any kind of spin on it, the sort of spin we have heard over the last couple of days, to try to say it is something else. Anyone with an interest in this matter, or indeed anyone who sees the invitation, can see for themselves it is a Liberal Party fundraiser, and indeed Mr Heydon agreed to speak at it.

I want to look at the principles of impartiality and prejudice, because they are clear in the national guide to court officers. It reads:

An appearance of continuing ties, such as might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fund raising events or through contributions to a political party should be avoided.

Nothing could be clearer than that, and we have established that Mr Heydon accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. He accepted that invitation and he received emails which clearly stated it was a Liberal Party fundraiser. So that principle in the national court guidelines is certainly breached in that context. Mr Heydon himself, as many of us have said in this place, said in 2011:

It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral. It is for this reason that the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification.

And the quote goes on. So again there is no neutrality in the acceptance of an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. And just yesterday the Prime Minister, so desperate to keep his own job—because the royal commission and Mr Heydon were another captain's pick—misquoted Julian Burnside QC, who said he believed Justice Heydon was an honourable man. Mr Burnside recently said he believed Justice Heydon was an honourable man, but that the government had misquoted him.

What Julian Burnside had said was:

I think he is an honourable person and I think in the circumstances an honourable person would step aside.

The Prime Minister, never one to let the truth get in the way of his spin, only used a selection of what Julian Burnside QC said, stating, 'Dyson Heydon is man of honour'. And of course he did not finish Julian Burnside's complete quote, because Julian Burnside did not put spin on it as the Prime Minister did. The bit that the Prime Minister forgot was that Julian Burnside said, 'In the circumstances, an honourable person would step aside.' And that is what Mr Heydon should do. He should step aside.

Mr Heydon clearly knew it was a Liberal Party fundraiser because the email's heading had that and indeed the body of the email had it. In fact, he has strongly criticised a witness who appeared before him in the royal commission for not reading her documents so thoroughly. It seems that what applies to witnesses does not apply to the commissioner himself. We all know that ignorance is not a defence, and I am sure Mr Heydon knows that. It is time that this witch-hunt of a royal commission be concluded and the now tainted Mr Heydon step down. Never mind the fine record he may have had; he has well and truly overstepped the line, and it is time for him to resign that post at the royal commission.