Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

In moving this motion I would like to highlight my anticipation of the Attorney-General providing the full costs associated with the engagement of Commissioner Heydon. Whilst we know overall—at least from the information available to date—that the costs have been exorbitant, we still do not have the full picture.

Indeed, today Senator Brandis could not even tell us if he had provided a personal sign-off for higher-than-standard rates with respect to Mr Stoljar. How he could not remember that he had signed off on such a thing is beyond me, but it fits into the overall context here of the political witch-hunt that has been involved with this royal commission.

There are two factors which we should be looking at in relation to the royal commission. Firstly, this cost issue and secondly, also, the issue of impartiality. This is where, despite what might be put to Commissioner Heydon by 4 o'clock today from the parties and others, I would raise three issues. These are three pretty critical issues. They are the three issues that relate to 'three strikes and you are out'.

Let's go back to the first strike. The first strike I observed at the time—and which Laura Tingle raised in one of her columns—was the intervention by Justice Heydon in which he suggested that the opposition leader 'might' be seen as an evasive witness. How inappropriate that conduct was! He managed to skip through on that, maybe simply because it was his first indiscretion. But let's look at the other indiscretions.

The second one is—and I tire of this discussion as to whether an event was a fundraiser or not; frankly that is not the point. The point is: it was a Liberal Party function, regardless of whether any funds were made—although donations were sought—Tony Nutt, it was a Liberal Party function. The commissioner should have had the good sense at the outset to avoid that type of partiality, but he did not—until the media started asking questions—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then the cover-up started.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Conroy. As we are now aware: the cover up started.

But let's go to the third issue. Last week, when I first saw the suggestions about this event when I looked online at Latika Bourke's article, I found a link—a link that was taken down—a connection. I cannot recall—I am searching even now—whether it was the New South Wales Law Society or the Law Council of Australia. But, either way, the connections within the legal fraternity in New South Wales need to be carefully addressed.

This is why I raised the question: what balance is there in all of this being held within Eight Selbourne Chambers. Who is next door to whom? Who is having discussions with whom? Who is involving themselves in party events? These are all serious questions—when this Abbott government engages in the type of witch-hunts that have been involved in this royal commission.

I might have originally thought otherwise. I might have taken the same approach that Bill Shorten took, which was to present himself and leave himself open to question. Then I heard Commissioner Heydon's comments during his evidence. How could he suggest he might 'seem' a particular way or another? It was outrageous in terms of his behaviour as the commissioner. That was his first strike, and now we have had two more.

But let me close with the contrast. I thought it was more recent than this but I did a little search today because I wanted to make a contrast with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Abbott. The contrast I made was with something people might recall: a particular Seven Network interview of Mark Riley's. Did Mr Abbott, back in 2011, want to leave himself open to questions? No. He could not answer a single question for 24 seconds. This man who is now the Prime Minister looked ridiculous. One Liberal Party member thought he was going to hit Mark Riley. Make that comparison in your mind. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not surprising why the Labor Party opposition in this chamber are doing their damnedest to try and disguise the evidence of organised criminality in the union movement.

Can I just very briefly name 10: organised crime; jihad terrorists; the CFMEU—we all know about that; the Comancheros being used as debt collectors—we all know about that; the construction company that pays Mr Shorten's election campaign director—we all know about that. We know about Mr Shorten cutting workers' conditions. We know about the CFMEU leaking details from Cbus members. We know about John Sekta's threats. We know about the police arrest of a former CFMEU official who gives evidence. We know about Bill Shorten's close friend Cesar Melhem and the Industry 2020 slush fund. We know about Cesar Melhem, Mr Shorten's very close friend, and the false invoices. And we know about the Boral construction sites in Melbourne where, it was claimed, the law was determined by the CFMEU.

Why are the Labor Party opposite running the union line? Because they are controlled by the union movement. There is perhaps nothing wrong with that—if the union movement were in any way representative of the Australian people. But the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that only 17 per cent of employees were trade union members. I will repeat that: 17 per cent of Australia's workers choose to be members of the trade union movement. No wonder the Labor Party involved themselves in these arrangements when in government—to make sure that governments insist on workers being members of the trade union—because, even in the public sector, only 42 per cent of employees choose to be members of the union.

But take that to the private sector: only 12 per cent of employees in the private sector choose to be members of the union. Yet the unions control the Australian Labor Party.

We all know the statistics: half the current federal ALP members and senators have had paid positions in the trade union movement. As I said, if the trade union movement were at all representative of Australian workers, you might be able to accept that, and yet 17 per cent of Australian workers choose the ALP organisation which choose every member sitting opposite here and half the ALP frontbench of the Labor Party. Of the front bench of the ALP, 22 of 43 are former union officials. Of the 26 current members on the national executive, the chief organisational body of the party, 19 are former union officials.

I say again: if the union movement were representative of Australian workers you could almost think that that was relevant. But only 17 per cent of Australian workers choose to be in the union and, in the private sector, only 12 per cent choose to be in the union.

Suddenly and, strangely, there is silence from those opposite. This is the first time I have ever made a speech where I have not been subject to bullying interjections. But today the facts are out there. Of all workers in Australia only 17 per cent of them choose to join the union movement. And yet the union movement controls the opposition and controls the alternative government. No wonder the Labor Party come in here and want to shut down a royal commission, which has exposed the criminality of the union movement. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason why no-one would want to interrupt that diatribe is that it proves the point. It proves the very point that we want to make here today—that the so-called royal commission is simply a tool of the Liberal Party of Australia and the hatred they have for trade unionists and the trade union movement. Nobody could have made it more forcefully than Senator Macdonald in what we have just heard from him. Instead of trying to defend former Justice Heydon and the witch-hunt that he now sits over the top of, he runs another attack on the trade union movement and the decent people who represent workers in this country. But we are used to that and we will hear much more of it.

The issue here is whether the royal commissioner, Dyson Heydon, is conflicted in terms of his capacity to preside impartially over this inquiry. What we have seen is a number of issues at that royal commission. The first one being the bias towards witnesses getting access to cross-examination and that not being allowed for union officials who are under attack by Dyson Heydon and the Liberal Party. One issue of bias is the very nature of how that royal commission is being undertaken. It is okay if you are a friend of the Liberal Party, you can get cross-examination, but if you are a union official then no cross-examination from your lawyers—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One special union official!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right—one special union official. And we also have the proposition here that so-called Justice Heydon—I think he has long lost that title—can sit on, supposedly, an impartial basis and then make comment about the evidence of the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing could have been more political; nothing could have been more biased. Nothing could have been a more public demonstration of why this royal commissioner is unfit to preside over this royal commission.

And then we come to the doozy. We know that Dyson Heydon has got a long family pedigree of links to the Liberal Party, going back to Sir Robert Menzies. We know that. We know that he was appointed because he is a conservative judge and will do the bidding of the Liberal Party in the attacks on the trade union movement—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it helps Senator Cameron's argument to be pointing out the virtues of—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but what is your point of order, Senator Smith?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think it helps Senator Cameron's case to be pointing out the virtues of Dyson Heydon—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure there is anything to rule on there but, just in case there was, Senator Smith, I rule there is no point of order.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I hope you do better in your contribution than in your point of order. That being as it may, there is Dyson Heydon, with long links to the Liberal Party, being appointed on a multimillion-dollar retainer to actually preside over a witch-hunt against the trade union movement. That is all it is. There is no doubt that Dyson Heydon is not an appropriate officer to be presiding over this royal commission. He is quite clearly biased and he is quite clearly partisan. There is no argument about that.

The documentary trail clearly shows that, while he was the royal commissioner, he was prepared to address a Liberal Party fundraiser. He was prepared to abandon all evidence of any impartiality to go to a Liberal Party fundraiser and address his Liberal Party peers. There is no doubt about that. This is a man who has disqualified himself because of his actions. This is a man who has got no credibility to preside over any impartial judgement of any issues. And it makes it even worse that this is the Prime Minister's royal commission, set up to attack his political opponents, the trade union movement and promote the interests of the Liberal Party.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just listening to Senator Cameron's performance I could not help but reflect on Shakespeare, not that his performance had anything to do with Shakespeare. But I am reminded of that Shakespearean comedy Much Ado About Nothing. Those of us who are fans of Shakespeare will know that the comedy Much Ado About Nothing has a central theme that a great fuss is made of something which is insignificant. Except that is only partially true because what we have here are the agents of the Australian union movement in this parliament trying to create a smokescreen from the very revealing evidence of the interim findings that have been made by that royal commission.

Senator Cameron is trying to suggest that the royal commission is a tool for the Liberal Party. Far from being a tool for the Liberal Party, it is in fact, we would hope, a tool so that the ordinary, honest, hardworking workers of this country who happen to be members of the union movement can get a proper, accurate, clear insight to what it is that is actually happening inside their union movement.

I just want to reflect briefly on what the royal commission has identified so far. What is it that Labor is trying to hide from? What is it that the agents of the Australian union movement in this place on that side are trying to hide from? Would it be evidence—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that make you the agent of Optus?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are far from Shakespearean, Senator Conroy. Would it be evidence that the New South Wales branch of the TWU, the Transport Workers Union, sent the ALP inflated sets of membership numbers between 2005 and 2013? Would that be it, Senator Conroy? Would it be that certain officials of the AWU, the NUW, the TWU, the CFMEU and the HSU have used their union's name and their union position to raise funds for their own benefit and the benefit of like-minded associates, even by compulsory levies on their employees in breach of duties owed to new members? Would it be that the evidence has been that the superannuation fund Sievers put the interests of the CFMEU above that of its own members? Would it be that? Or would it be that a building redundancy fund, the BERT, paid to fund illegal strike action and millions of dollars in CFMEU apprenticeship training? Would it be that? The list goes on and on.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were stealing from drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I want to make an important point. The union movement contains within it the hardworking, decent members of Australia's community. What we are talking about here is the thuggery, intimidation and abuse of that authority by union members. There was a powerful opportunity today. The Labor Party, senators on that side of the chamber, could have come into this parliament and their efforts could have been talking about the importance of reform, the urgency of reform even. They could have taken their lead from the very effective op-ed in the Australian Financial Review today by former Prime Minister John Howard highlighting how in the past oppositions have lent their energies, their arm to important reform measures.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is remarkable how you can discover—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Importantly, Senator Conroy, you might like to read or have read to you that op-ed piece in the Australian Financial Review. It would be very revealing about what you as the deputy leader of Labor in this place can do to support reform, reform that would help, not hinder, ordinary Australian workers. The challenge is yours. This is a smokescreen on your part.