Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received the following letter from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"The need for a Royal Commissioner to appear to be unprejudiced and impartial."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The proposal is supported. I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ludwig. Just before I call Senator McGrath, I just remind senators to be cautious in how they reflect on members of the other place.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I will fully defend the professionalism and the impartiality of Dyson Heydon AC, QC. The senator opposite said that the royal commission had significant problems. I think the significant problems that have been identified are those affecting the union movement and corrupt union bosses across Australia. The issue that the Labor Party has with Justice Heydon is not any allegations about impartiality; it is the corruption and the badness that has been taking place in the union movement over a number of years. The royal commission has done vital work to uncover questionable dealings by union bosses. Criminal charges have been recommended against at least three of the most senior officials of the militant construction union the CFMEU. No less than four people have been arrested in association with the dealings of the CFMEU thanks to the work of the royal commission. A series of unions have been implicated in secret slush fund scandals that have finally come to light. We should not forget that the Leader of the Opposition, a secretary of the Australian Workers Union, traded away the penalty rates of low-paid workers, had his union receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexplained payments and failed to disclose over $40,000 donated to his political campaign by a company with which his union was dealing. Of course, he remembered this hours and days before his own appearance before the royal commission.

The Labor Party and their paymasters in the union movement have been engaged in a desperate attack on the royal commissioner. Labor and the unions are desperate to bring down Justice Heydon because of the work he is bringing to light. He is shining sunlight into the nefarious activities of various elements of the trade union movement. The ACTU has claimed by media release that the commission is untenable and that the commissioner's actions are an example of bias. Yet, when given the opportunity to bring a claim of bias to the royal commission, they prevaricated. They clearly do not know whether they have enough evidence to even argue a bias case, let alone win a case. I would like to read from the media statement of the President of the Law Council of Australia, Duncan McConnel:

The public attacks on the commissioner being played out through the media are unacceptable and damage the basis on which tribunals and courts operate.

He went on to say:

The person who sits as a royal commissioner is entitled to the same respect, inside and outside of the inquiry, as a judge in court.

In this case, Mr John Dyson Heydon AC QC is a highly regarded former judicial officer. They concurred that the proper place for an application is the commission itself, yet the Australian Council of Trade Unions cannot decide whether it has grounds to make one.

What I think we should do is have a look at the career of Justice Heydon in terms of what a brilliant legal mind we have here. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney. He was a Rhodes Scholar for New South Wales in 1964. He graduated with a Master of Arts and a Bachelor of Civil Laws from Oxford University. He was admitted to the New South Wales Bar in 1973. He was a professor of law at age 30 and a QC in 1987. He was Dean of the Sydney Law School. He was appointed by a Labor Premier, Mr Bob Carr, to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. He was a former judge with the High Court of Australia and he was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia. Justice Heydon is one of the most respected jurists in Australia. The unfortunate and unacceptable attacks that the Labor Party and their allies are throwing at Justice Heydon in this mud fest are a sad indication of their own lack of belief and their own lack of certainty about the allegations that are coming out of the royal commission.

What is also interesting is that sometimes the word hypocrisy is thrown about this chamber—I am unsure about the correct term and whether it is unparliamentary—but Labor party members have been involved in organising their own legal lectures at which serving judges have spoken. Now they are claiming, hypocritically, that Commissioner Heydon's decision not to attend a similar function organised by the Liberal Party proves bias. Their events include Justice Kirby delivering the Neville Wran lecture, established by the Labor Party, while a serving High Court judge. In that speech he noted that he has delivered lectures associated with the Liberal Party as well. Luke Foley, the New South Wales Labor politician, delivered the lecture this year. Justices Kirby and Gordon delivered the Lionel Murphy memorial lecture on separate occasions which were initially funded by financial grants from Labor governments. This is very similar the Garfield Barwick lecture, which Commissioner Heydon was asked to deliver and which commemorates the contribution of a former Attorney-General who became a High Court judge. The Australian Society for Labor Lawyers—and that sounds like a fun bunch of people, doesn't it?—is lawyers who are sympathetic to the Labor Party or members of the Labor Party and has had papers presented to it by Justice Michael Kirby while in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in 1984; Mary Gaudron while as a High Court justice in 1987; Michael McHugh while in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in 1987; the ACT Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate in 1988; and Justice Spender of the Federal Court in 1985.

When Labor get up here and attack Justice Heydon, it is clear that they have failed to look in their own closet in terms of their own corporate, political and legal history before they have made the attacks on Justice Heydon. The real reason that Labor are attacking Justice Heydon is the work being undertaken by the royal commission. For those listening at home I have a top 10 list of interesting developments that have come out of the royal commission. In the remaining two minutes and 40 seconds I have, I hope I get to go through the top 10 concerning developments that have come out of the royal commission. This will give an indication of why Labor and their paymasters in the union movement are concerned about the good work—the impartial work—that has been undertaken by Justice Heydon.

We found out: (1) in Victoria, Comanchero bikies were employed as debt collectors in the building industry; (2) CFMEU officials Brian Parker and Darren Greenfield consorted with underworld crime figure George Alex, whose friends and colleagues included the leader of the Rebels bikie gang—a former Comanchero—and ISIS recruits Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar; (3) construction company Boral suffered a 75 per cent reduction in its market share after refusing to comply with the CFMEU's unlawful demands; (4) the private details over 300 construction workers were leaked by the construction industry super fund Cbus to the CFMEU; (5) John Setka abused and threatened workers; (6) the ACT police arrested a former construction union organiser and previous Labor Party sub-branch president, Fihi Kivalu, after evidence to the commission that he had demanded tens of thousands of dollars in payments from tradesmen in return for getting work. (7) officials of the HSU pressured their staff to cheat online right-of-entry tests in the names of their organisers. (8) the Australian Workers Union added workers to its membership roll without the knowledge or consent of those workers; (9) the Australian Workers Union arranged to have a super fund pay its own assistant secretary $93,000 for 2½ days work; (10) the Australian Workers Union received hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexplained payments from series of companies.

But it is actually the top 11—I did miss out Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten, the leader of the Labor Party forgot that when he was running for election that $40,000 was expended on his behalf in payments to his campaign manager. And they are the real reasons why Labor is going over Justice Heydon—it is revenge. Labor know they have been caught out and they want to have revenge on the commissioner who caught them out in terms of the skulduggery and the dirty deals that have been done for years by the Labor Party and the union movement.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the need for a royal commissioner to appear to be unprejudiced and impartial, which is clearly an important thing. What we are debating today goes to the very heart of the integrity of our legal system—that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. To quote a 2011 judgement in British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited and Laurie:

It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral.

Those words are very applicable today, as they come from Justice Dyson Heydon during his time as a justice of the High Court of Australia. The principle applies to judges, tribunal members, and, yes, royal commissioners. It is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the system.

Let us look at some facts here. The Trade Union Royal Commission was established in 2014 by the Abbott government. The same Liberal government appointed former Justice Heydon as the royal commissioner. Under the watch of Commissioner Heydon, the commission has investigated the operations of the Liberal Party's political opponents. In April 2014, there was an email exchange between Mr Heydon and the organisers of the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture in which the connections between the event and the Liberal Party were spelled out. The invitation promoting Heydon's appearance clearly said:

Cheques should be made payable to the Liberal Party of Australia.

And

…all proceeds from this event will be applied to state election campaigning.

Let us put aside our opinion of whether the royal commissioner is in fact biased; it is the appearance of bias that is important here.

The royal commission certainly appears to be politically motivated. It comes as the party of WorkChoices has waged an attack on people's rights at work. This royal commission was meant to lay the groundwork for further attacks on things like penalty rates. The royal commissioner has got to be considered alongside the government's other attacks on trade unions—the attempts yesterday to reintroduce the ABCC, the attempt yesterday to tie unions up in red tape. This is the context of the appearance of bias.

The event in question, the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture, is clearly a partisan event. It is a New South Wales Liberal Party fundraiser. Then we find out that Mr Heydon—himself a Rhodes scholar—was on the panel that gave the Rhodes scholarship to one Mr Tony Abbott. David Mann has written one jibe at the time was that the scholarship was given to a second-grade footballer, third-rate academic and fourth-class politician. What should happen now?

As Justice Heydon said in 2002:

The law compels judges who have such a bias or may reasonably be thought to have such a bias to disqualify themselves from sitting on cases.

Let us now look at the words of Attorney-General George Brandis:

The political impartiality of the commission [has] been fatally compromised.

That was not about this case; that was about the Australian Human Rights Commission President, Gillian Triggs. Imagine if Ms Triggs had attended a fundraiser for one of the parties opposed to this government? Imagine the calls from the government for the commissioner to step down. Similarly, if a judge was discovered to be raising money for the prosecution, there would be a mistrial and the case would be over. That is what has to happen here. Any pretence of independence of the trade union royal commission is now gone. The royal commission must be immediately terminated.

We have got to stop this tit-for-tat pushing of party political agendas. Australians do not want this government to operate in this he-said she-said manner. We have got to get back to a situation where people have trust in government and trust in the impartiality, particularly of royal commissions. Royal commissions sit there at the pinnacle of our system of inquiries. It is absolutely critical that they are held above reproach, at the highest levels of community regard. They have got to be impeccable otherwise there is such a corrosive influence on the public's assessment of the impartiality of royal commissions and of government itself. The government must put politics aside and focus on governing.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately this is not question time but statement time, so I cannot ask Senator Lines some questions or get answers. But I would still like to put some rhetorical questions on the record.

I listened to Senator Lines, and she was saying that it is unacceptable for Justice Heydon to accept an invitation to a Liberal Party organised event. The question I would ask Senator Lines is: if it is such a scandal for that to be accepted, why was it okay for Justice Kirby to deliver the Neville Wran lecture in 2008, organised and established by the Labor Party? Why was that okay while he was a sitting, serving High Court judge? Why was it okay that Michael Kirby addressed the Society of Labor Lawyers while he was on the New South Wales Court of Appeal? Why was it okay that Mary Gaudron, also as a High Court justice, addressed the same body? Why was it okay that Michael McHugh, while he was on the New South Wales Court of Appeal, addressed the Society for Labor Lawyers? Why was it okay for ACT chief justices and chief magistrates to address the same body? Why was it okay for Justice Jeffrey Spender, while he was on the Federal Court, to similarly address the Society for Labor lawyers?

What we have here is blatant hypocrisy from the Labor Party, and we have that hypocrisy because this is not about Justice Heydon and not about this particular event. What this is about is a desperate ploy from a desperate union movement in hock with a desperate political party to distract attention from the disgraceful conduct of union members and officials exposed by this royal commission. It is all a distraction technique.

I am a father of four kids and I know distraction techniques well. When you do not like what your children are doing, when you do not like if they are crying or whingeing or behaving badly, you distract them. You try to distract their attention and put something else in their face or do something like that. That is exactly what the Labor Party are trying to do here because they do not like what is going on down there at the royal commission. They do not like what is happening so they are trying to distract attention from it, at great cost to the Australian people and to good public policy in this area.

I have not seen the Labor Party introduce or state that there is a matter of public importance about the conduct of union officials while I have been here. This time in our chamber is a time for opposition and minor parties to state what they view are the important issues facing the public and we can debate them in this chamber during this time. I have not seen the Labor Party put up one matter of public importance about how it is important that union officials be subject to high levels of propriety and good conduct. I have not seen the Greens either put up motions to discuss and debate the conduct of union officials as they have been exposed in this royal commission and in other fora in the last few years.

What is the bigger issue here? Is it an issue that we seem to have organised crime involved in our trade union movements? Is that an issue? It has been something the assistant commissioner of the Victorian Police Force has stated to the royal commission? I do not know the assistant commissioner of the Victorian Police Force but I imagine he is of good standing. He has alleged that there are examples of organised crime and criminal conduct in our trade union movement. My question to the Labor Party is: is that an issue? Do you think that is a matter of public importance? Do you think it is a matter of public importance that we may have organised crime in our trade union movement? I certainly do. I think that is an extremely important issue for the public to know about and to debate but it is not something the Labor Party want to expose.

Does the Labor Party think it is a matter of public importance that the royal commission has exposed that some CFMEU officials, in particular Mr Brian Parker and Mr Darren Greenfield, have been exposed as being involved with Australians who have subsequently ended up fighting for ISIS. Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar were both involved with the CFMEU. Is that a matter of public importance? Apparently not, according to the Labor Party because they have never brought that forward in the time available to them in this chamber. Is it a matter of public importance that the CFMEU regularly and consistently disobeys the law on construction sites particularly in Melbourne? Is that a matter of public importance because we know recently in disputes, particularly with Boral and other construction companies in Melbourne, that the CFMEU has disobeyed court orders and has continued to engage in unlawful conduct. Is that a matter of public importance? I think it is a matter of public importance when trade unions do not obey the law but it is not something the Labor Party seems to want to discuss.

Does the Labor Party think it is a matter of public importance when the private details of 300 construction workers are leaked by an industry superannuation fund to the CFMEU? Is that a matter of public importance? Is it a matter of public importance when John Setka makes vile and insistent threats to other people in his role with the CFMEU? Is that a matter of public importance? I reckon it might be. I also think it might be a matter of public importance when people are arrested for unlawful conduct and we know at least four people have been in the royal commission so far and that criminal charges have been recommended against at least three of the most senior officials in the CFMEU. I reckon that might be a bit more important than an event organised for lawyers for lawyers to speak at. I think all of the conduct might be a little bit more important, but that is not something the Labor Party wants to bring into this chamber to debate. It is not something they are willing to have exposed and that is why we have this desperate attempt to distract attention from this disgraceful conduct and that is the only way you can describe this conduct. It is absolutely disgraceful. It should be condemned by every member of this chamber and I think in their heart of hearts it would be but for political reasons it is not something the Labor Party want to talk about.

I did say at the start of my contribution that—surprise, surprise—Labor Party lawyer groups have organised similar functions where sitting judges, including sitting High Court justices, have spoken.

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

Not while they are prosecuting cases.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That has happened on multiple occasions, through you Chair to Senator Conroy. I do not think that is such a bad thing. It is not my idea of a fun night out. I am not a lawyer and sometimes being in a political party with many of them I get sick of listening to them, to be honest. But if that is what knocks your socks off, if you want to listen to a justice of the High Court or some other lawyer, go for your life. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with people joining political parties in our country, be it that they join the Labor Party or the Greens or some of the minor parties. I do not have any problem with Australians joining political parties. Indeed, I would recommend and argue more Australians should join political parties because it would be a great thing if more people took an interest in the future of our country.

Whatever your views are, it is a great idea to join a political party and to get involved in the battle of ideas. Some of those ideas do circulate around matters of the law, although that is not my particular kettle of fish—I think that is the wrong metaphor but I cannot think of the right one. It is not what floats my boat, talking about the law. If that is what people want to do, they should go for their life. The Labor Party have done it many times and that is great. One of the most important things about this last week's debate is that clearly judges and other senior legal officials in our community will be less likely to accept invitations to such events after this stunt from the Labor Party and the multiple stunts they have had in the last week. It will be less likely that events such as this will be organised in the future and I think that is unfortunate. I think it is unfortunate that fewer people will in future be able to go to these events, that fewer senior legal officials will want to discuss and provide their experience and wisdom to the members of political parties and our democracy will be weaker for that effect.

I did listen also to Senator Rice earlier mention that in her view this was a politically motivate commission. Senator Rice, through you Chair, whatever your thoughts are on why the royal commission was established, there is no doubt that, having been established, it has exposed serious misconduct which needs to be followed up and I am sure will be followed up. The calls to shut it down are completely out of proportion and reveal that the real reason behind why we are having this debate is that they want to cover up this corrupt behaviour.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people of Australia have lost faith in the Abbott government. Tony and his team continue to lurch from one catastrophe to another.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lazarus, I would ask you to address the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. I apologise. The Prime Minister and his team continue to lurch from one catastrophe to another. Every morning the people of Australia wake up to yet another colossal Prime Ministerial stuff-up—Choppergate, knighthoods, pension cuts, GP co-payments, and same-sex marriage. The Heydongate saga is just another stuff-up in the growing pile of Prime Ministerial and government stuff-ups. I am of the view that a royal commissioner must be impartial and independent of political associations. Based on this, Dyson Heydon's position is untenable and he must step down in order to restore community confidence in the trade union royal commission. I should add that I am strongly of the view that the trade union royal commission is nothing more than a political attack on the health and future of unionism across Australia.

There are many areas of our community where we desperately do need royal commissions, and the CSG mining sector is one of them. Across our country, farmers and landholders are being decimated by the impact of CSG mining. CSG mining is killing animals, poisoning our water, depleting our water supplies, devastating land values and affecting human health. Why won't the government establish a royal commission into the human impact of CSG mining? It is because CSG mining companies donate to the coalition.

Dyson Heydon must go and the need for the trade union royal commission must be re-assessed. As I keep saying, I cannot keep the government honest but I can keep them accountable. If the Abbott government have any respect for the people of Australia they will act swiftly to remove commissioner Heydon.

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

I rise to support the matter of public importance. I was pleased to hear that Senator Canavan believed that there was some behaviour that was absolutely unacceptable. Let me read to you the following quote:

Probity may be affected by conscious bias for or against a particular litigant or class of litigants. The law compels judges who have such a bias or may reasonably be thought to have such a bias to disqualify themselves ...

That is a quote from none other than Justice Dyson Heydon from a 2002 address to an assembled gaggle of his right-wing friends. Pithy and accurate, Justice Heydon was striking at the heart of the values that underpin our society's approach to justice. But Justice Heydon and the royal commission over which he presides have departed so far from these values that their respective roles are now untenable. Furthermore, Mr Abbott's $80 million dollar royal commission has been exposed as the cynical, political Star Chamber that it is.

In February 2014 Mr Abbott repaid the favour after he himself was sent to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship by none other than former Justice Heydon. But Mr Abbott did keep an election promise, one of the very rare examples of him doing so. He took the necessary steps to establish a royal commission that would be specifically tasked with pursuing his political opponents. There was no pretence about this at all. Its whole job was to denigrate former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and to attack, undermine and smear the current Leader of the Opposition. The terms of reference were fatalistic. They implicitly accused the trade union movement of engaging in unlawful conduct and explicitly directed the royal commission to pursue particular unions. It was immediately clear to all that this royal commission would act as the Liberal Party's publicly-funded political dirt unit. Not satisfied with just having a little dirt unit in their press secretaries gathered together under their Whip—not content with that—they wanted an $80 million plaything with coercive powers to smear their political opponents. This was a Star Chamber from the first day and it has been exposed again as a Star Chamber in the last few days.

Tony Abbott needed someone to head up this dirt unit. Enter Dyson Heydon. After a youthful appointment as a law professor, Justice Heydon was elected Dean of the University of Sydney Law School in 1978. His tenure in this role must surely have been successful, because one of his school's students at that time went on to become the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Tony Abbott. In fact, as I said, Justice Heydon was lucky enough to examine the future Prime Minister in detail as he sat on the Rhodes scholarship committee that awarded Tony Abbott his scholarship. Surely the Prime Minister is eternally grateful for the privilege. Following a brief yet controversial stint as Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court's Court of Appeal, Prime Minister John Howard appointed Justice Heydon to the High Court in 2003. Justice Heydon spent his 10 years on the High Court benches as a judicial activist, regularly dissenting from the moderate rulings of his colleagues and, in doing so, pursuing his right-wing ideologies in the minority.

His family has a longstanding relationship with the Liberal party. His father had even acted as an advisor to the Liberal Menzies government. So Mr Abbott had his man: a respected lawyer, an ideological right-winger, and a man whose family had enjoyed successive generations of Liberal Party patronage.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did your dad do?

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

Pardon?

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Blaming someone for what their father did?

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

Oh dear!

There are roughly 2,500 barristers in the state of New South Wales. Twenty five of these barristers operate from Eight Selborne Chambers in Sydney—just 25 out of 2,500. Eight Selborne had, surprisingly, been home to Justice Heydon and these 25 barristers and represented the most intimate of the legal fraternity. Despite the weight of chance stacked heavily against this small community of legal practitioners, three of these 25 who shared chambers with Justice Heydon have been awarded multimillion dollar contracts from the trade union royal commission, the most prominent of which, of course, is Jeremy Stoljar, who was appointed by Dyson Heydon as counsel assisting the royal commission. Mr Heydon knew that Stoljar would make a reliable deputy. They had long been friends. Heydon was such a keen supporter that he had gladly launched Stoljar's book in 2011.

As you would expect in such a murky world of patronage and jobs for mates, the government has been exceptionally keen to maintain the secrecy of payments to Heydon and his friends. While they have successfully hidden Heydon's fees behind the thin veil of commercial confidence, investigations by the Senate's committees have revealed that Jeremy Stoljar's pockets have been well lined by the royal commission to the tune of $3.4 million. While taxpayers are wondering what value they are receiving from this star chamber, Justice Heydon and his lavishly paid buddies, Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party are getting everything they have paid for.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order. Standing order 193 makes it very, very clear that it is not possible for a senator to make imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on the houses, or members or officers of those houses. You could not have made a more serious imputation against the character of the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, than the one just made by Senator Conroy, and he should be asked to withdraw.

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

I have no idea what he is talking about.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan if you could point us to the imputation, without pointing to the exact words used necessarily, so I can rule.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy made a reference to the relationship between Mr Abbott and the royal commission—

Senator Lines interjecting—

Do you want to listen or not?

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is a point of order. I will hear the point of order and then I will rule on it. It is difficult for me to rule if you are interjecting.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Conroy made a reference to the relationship—

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

Senator to you.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't tend to make a contribution with interjections, Mr Acting Deputy President.

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

Well, call him Senator Conroy.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Lines, I do not need the interjections. Senator O'Sullivan is aware that the use of proper titles such as senator should be used in here and I would remind him. We do not need your assistance while he is making his point of order. You are not being helpful. I will now go to Senator O'Sullivan so that he can make his point of order.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy made it very clear through his words that there were imputations against our Prime Minister with respect to the appointment of this royal commissioner having occurred as a result of the relationship with the Prime Minister, with the royal commissioner and through their historical association. It is a very serious imputation and it should be withdrawn.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, it would assist the Senate if any imputations that were made against the Prime Minister were withdrawn.

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Standing order 193 does stand. I did not hear the precise words that Senator O'Sullivan is referring to, but it would certainly assist the debate in the chamber if you would withdraw any motives or imputations and we can move on.

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

Like you, I am a little unclear. But if there was an imputation that the good senator from Queensland has taken offence to, I happily withdraw it.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Conroy.

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

While the taxpayers are wondering what value they are receiving from Justice Heydon and his lavishly paid buddies, Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party are getting what they paid for. The Heydon royal commission wantonly ignores the standards that have been established and upheld by royal commissions before it—accepting hearsay, refusing objections and cross-examinations, double standards for different witnesses and even providing detailed briefings for the media. Dyson Heydon has overseen a royal commission totally failing principles of natural justice. They stand there and, as they have witnesses walking into the box, they start distributing to the press gallery, before the witnesses have even sat down or are handed it themselves, the documents that they are going to be cross-examined on. So the first time the witnesses get to see documents is as they are handed to the media. This is a star chamber that is about nothing more than helping this pathetic government get re-elected. This royal commission has been put in place, this star chamber, this quasi-judicial theatre, to smear and slander the Liberal Party's political opponents.

But Dyson Heydon's bias and partisan ways were finally exposed by the revelation that he had agreed to address a Liberal Party fundraiser—an absolute slam-dunk case. His claims that he was unaware that the event was a political fundraiser simply do not stand up to scrutiny. By his own admission, he received multiple pieces of correspondence that outlined the event's ties to the Liberal Party. The chair of a Liberal Party lawyer branch invited Mr Heydon to the event on 10 April 2014 and the email explicitly explained the relationship between the Liberal Party and the lawyer branch and the event itself. (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not been here for a long time—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Settle down, fellas. As I said to these colleagues last night: kick your shoes off, rest back and have a listen up. I have not been here for a long time, but in the time that I have been here I have seen, on occasions, an abuse of the parliamentary privilege that underpins our ability to get on with the job. But I have never seen such an atrocious abuse as I have just witnessed from Senator Conroy. I have never seen such an attack—in this case on a senior retired jurist of this nation, one of the most respected legal jurists in the country. I do not intend to waste one more second of this chamber's time in relation to the facts that led up to it, because they are well and truly clear. Through question time today and yesterday we have heard from our colleagues across the chamber, including the Greens. Have they got any interest in job creation in this nation? No. About education reform? None whatsoever. Or about disability services? They were chatting and giggling away over there today as they prepared to ask questions on this.

In the short time that I have to make a contribution, we need to ask ourselves: why would they want to attack this royal commission? Why would they want to attack this eminent jurist? I will tell you why: it is because over the last three or four days they have been exposed and their connections, both the Greens and the Labor Party, with their criminal activity—sorry, I withdraw that—with their association with people who are engaged in criminal activity that leads to benefits for those organisations, who then go ahead and nourish the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens with phenomenal sums of money. You are paid players, paid to be in this place to represent their interests and to defend them against these very, very serious allegations as exposed by this royal commission.

A fact I pointed out last night was that, in all the hundreds of hours in recent debates and in debates before, not once—with one exception, which I will come to—has anyone from that side ever mentioned transparency, accountability, holding people to account, or the abuse of power and positions? Only once, and that was a contribution made by Senator Ludwig last night when he referred to this royal commission as a 'stalking horse.' This is a pearl. Pick up your pens and make a note of it so you never, ever make the mistake of using it yourself. He said they were using this royal commission as a stalking horse to pursue transparency and accountability. Have a listen to that! As I said in my contribution last night: some days you people must not be able to think as the galloping hooves of this royal commission come up behind you.

We have exposed some of the most entrenched modern criminality and criminal behaviour in this country impacting on the productivity of this nation to the tune of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions—I suspect possibly billions. And, I said here, the people who are doing this, who have been exposed by the royal commission, are being protected by the Australian Labor Party—the same crowd that stands up at every opportunity to tell us that they are here for the workers of Australia. I have got to tell you that you do a good job of protecting the unions. You have done a terrific job standing up and battling on their behalf, but nothing you have done will make a positive contribution to the development and maintenance of jobs in this country, to the growth and development in the construction industry, to the issues of transparency and accountability. You need to look them up. I have an Oxford dictionary in my office—I will drop it around if you need it. Accountability—

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, no. You think it is a joke, Senator Sam. In between your filming liabilities as a cameo, all you want to do is laugh when your pathetic performance in protecting these criminal organisations is raised. And it is a massive abuse of parliamentary privilege. I thank you for the opportunity to make the contribution.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the matter of public importance. As a royal commissioner leading an inquiry examining union governance and corruption, it is clear that Mr Heydon has displayed a form of bias in accepting an invitation to become a keynote speaker at a Liberal Party function.

A royal commissioner cannot decide his own impartiality or perception of bias. You do not need a law degree to work that out; you just need to use some common sense. For heaven's sake—we have a situation where the Australian people know how a royal commissioner will vote at the next election. The royal commissioner has personally admitted that he was the main act at an important Liberal Party event. What next? Will Commissioner Heydon suspend royal commission hearings so that he can hand out Liberal how-to-vote cards at the Canning by-election?

No judge, after overwhelming evidence of bias has been produced, including words from this own mouth, can make a ruling on his own impartiality or perception of bias. He can defend his bias, he can argue and put forward a case to the contrary to a higher authority, but he cannot then make a judgement on his impartiality and expect the average Tasmanian to accept the integrity and fidelity of that decision.

Evidence may have emerged in this royal commission that has implicated the Liberal Party and its associates in corruption. But, because Commissioner Heydon has refused to allow crossbench senators to access his secret volume, we will never actually know the truth. He must resign now, and his secret report must be viewed by all crossbench senators.

You cannot, as Commissioner Heydon himself has written, have a confidential report that shows 'a grave threat to the power and authority of the Australian state' without people associated with all sides of politics being involved in serious corruption, criminal or subversive activities.

The longer the Prime Minister and Commissioner Heydon cover up that secret report from crossbench senators, the greater the likelihood that the Liberal Party is implicated in serious illegal activities. It is up to the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister to prove that they have not been implicated or linked to illegal activities in Mr Heydon's confidential volumes.

The Prime Minister made another captain's pick when he chose Justice Heydon to lead this royal commission, knowing full well the strong family and professional links that he had with the Liberal Party. When this sorry farce ends in a successful High Court action against the commissioner, it will ultimately be the Prime Minister who is at fault for the waste of hundreds of millions in taxpayers' money.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.