Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too wish to take note of answers to questions asked by members on this side of the chamber. I will try a different tack today, which I do not normally do: I will go through some notes and lay it all out so that those listening can get a handle on what has been going on. I want to talk about the situation with the perceived bias of the royal commissioner. In 2010, the inaugural Sir Garfield Barwick Address was organised by the Liberal Party and, of course, the current Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, spoke to it. This year's event was advertised on the New South Wales Bar Association website with a Liberal Party logo. It said that money was payable—it is undeniable—to the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales division and included the disclaimer that political donation laws apply to fundraising events. It is pretty simple: it was a Liberal fundraiser.

Mr Heydon received an email from a Mr Gregory Burton, who was the organiser of the Sir Garfield Barwick Address, on 10 April 2014. In Mr Burton's email, he disclosed that he is the chair of professional engagement for the New South Wales Liberal Party's lawyer branch. He stated:

… we trust we show the party in a favourable light!

The party being the Liberal Party. He declared that the Garfield Barwick address is the, in his words, 'flagship event' of his branch. Mr Burton wrote to ask if Mr Heydon would be amenable to delivering the address, if the commission was completed, suggesting that Mr Burton perceived a conflict of interest back in April 2014. Mr Heydon replied that he would be happy to give the address.

The royal commission into trade unions was extended in October last year, and we know that. Justice Heydon was reminded of the address in March 2015 and he confirmed his interest to address them. Through a series of conversations and questions being put to Commissioner Heydon he later declared—not originally, but later after it was raised with him through the media—that he 'overlooked', which was the word he used, the fact that the event was organised by the Liberal Party, and that he had been asked to give the address only if the royal commission had finished. Commissioner Heydon said:

I overlooked the connection between the person or persons organising the event and the Liberal Party which had been stated in the email of 10 April, 2014.

He went on to say that he also overlooked the fact his agreement to speak at that time had been:

… conditional on the work of the commission being completed before that time.

Commissioner Heydon was sent an email with attachments by a Liberal Party member on 12 June of this year declaring the event a fundraiser, including a political donation declaration on Liberal Party letterhead. Commissioner Heydon said that the email and attachments were printed by a personal assistant and that he did not read the attachments. Commissioner Heydon's personal assistant was emailed on 12 August 2015 by a Liberal Party member confirming details of the event. They said that the party would not be mentioned on advertisements in public Bar Association publications. The email noted:

… of course people will disclose if they go over the state donation limit.

On 13 August journalists obtained New South Wales Liberal Party flyers, one of which was sent to Commissioner Heydon in June, announcing that the event was a Liberal Party fundraiser and advising those attending to make cheques payable to the Liberal Party New South Wales Division. It said, very clearly, that all proceeds would be applied to state election campaigns with a disclaimer that donations over $12,000 would need to be disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission.

It does not matter how much that side of the chamber try to cover up and not tell us what the cost is. It was clearly a very poor choice by Commissioner Heydon. What makes it looks even murkier to the public is that that side of the chamber are doing everything they can to try to defend that it was not Liberal Party, that he did not see it, that the assistant missed it, that the dog ate his homework. It reeks. (Time expired)