Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the motion to take note of answers to questions asked by Senators Collins and Conroy. What did we learn from the answers to these questions? As I am coming to understand, not a great deal. But we did learn from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, that Dyson Heydon was selected by the government on his recommendation. It is a reminder, if we needed one, that this royal commission is absolutely a creature of the government. It is a creature of the executive.

It is worth reflecting on the consequences for our nation's institutions of their decision to pursue this royal commission. In this circumstance it is curious to consider that one of the hallmarks of political conservatism is supposed to be respect for our political institutions. Royal commissions are one of the legal institutions of this nation. They have played a respected role in dealing with issues that normal legal and political processes are incapable of dealing with. The Prime Minister showed no respect for the institution of the royal commission when he decided to establish one to inquire into trade unions. This is a blatantly political inquiry for blatantly political purposes. I know it, the people in this chamber know it and the public at large knows it. In establishing the inquiry, the Prime Minister has compromised the respect that royal commissions have previously enjoyed.

On this, it is perhaps worth quoting former Prime Minister John Howard, who said quite recently:

I’m uneasy about the idea of having royal commissions or inquiries into essentially a political decision on which the public has already delivered a verdict. I don’t think you should ever begin to go down the American path of using the law for narrow targeted political purposes.

Well, that advice was not heeded. Instead, what we have had is an $80 million exercise that is simply designed to smear political opponents. Despite the pious statements today, the government has used the royal commission relentlessly to smear and pursue political opponents.

Of course, this commission now faces a new and more serious challenge. As Senator Sterle outlined in his remarks, a series of events has led the commissioner to reveal circumstances that, quite reasonably, create an apprehension of bias. This comment is not just being made by people on this side of the chamber, but it is being made broadly in the commentary within the community. It is worth reflecting on this. It is a serious and significant matter in relation to a political institution that in the past has served our country well.

The government has relied at times on Julian Burnside, who of course has clarified his position in recent days. In so doing, he made reference to a previous circumstance where a person chairing an inquiry found themselves in a similar position. Just yesterday, Julian Burnside said that in the Australian Broadcasting Authority inquiry into cash for comment a very similar situation arose. The person chairing the inquiry, David Flint, was careless enough to go on air with John Laws when the cross-examination of John Laws had not been completed. He eventually saw the difficulty and stepped aside. That is the explanation that Julian Burnside provided about how people behave in this circumstance. It is quite reasonable for people in this place and people outside this place to raise their concerns about this process.

The royal commission into trade unions is quickly degenerating into a farce. Everybody understands the bias that is present. Everybody understands the way that the government has been using this process simply to smear people it does not like, political organisations it does not like, people who do not agree with the conservative views that they themselves hold. It is time for Mr Abbott, who is the owner, the person who initiated this commission, to recognise what everybody else in the country has realised, not to wait three weeks, as he did with Bronwyn Bishop, but to act now to make his concerns plain and to bring this to an end.

Question agreed to.