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 the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption and to meetings of the Cabinet.

I think it is important to reflect, yet again, on the discussion we have had in relation to the trade union royal commission because ministers attempt to say such questions are repetitive, that we are just rehashing old territory and then they start getting even more defensive. Once again, I got a lecture from Senator Brandis about my tone—though I think this was a first. They are issues that, fortunately, the President has indicated he will take away and look at as well. But it reminds me of the suggestion recently from Laura Tingle that some things for this government are almost like new religions. National security was one recently, but even the appropriate behaviour of royal commissioners seems to be another—how dare one ask questions. The point here is that the questions that are being asked are not repetitive. This story seems to be evolving.

The answers provided by both Senator Abetz and Senator Brandis today, with respect, are somewhat desperate if not pathetic. The comparison that Senator Brandis made to today about the future behaviour of former politicians was extraordinarily weak. We saw that Senator Abetz needed to correct his reference to a past appointment of Commissioner Heydon by, he thought at first, Neville Wran, but, as it turns out, it was Bob Carr. But, with respect, it is much like the debate about whether it is a fundraiser, an unsuccessful fundraiser, a Liberal Party event or whatever. The real point is that Commissioner Heydon, when he was a commissioner into trade union behaviour, chose to accept an invitation to a Liberal Party event and it was clear, by virtue of it calling for donations, that it was also a fundraiser. Now, he tells us that he overlooked certain connections. It seems as if he overlooked them a couple of times.

The point I made in question time was that that is all well and good—all of us overlook things on occasions—but Commissioner Heydon needs to apply the same standards that he applies to those whom he is investigating. As a recent article by Helen Davidson and Lenore Taylor points out, this has not been the case during the course of the royal commission. He has on several occasions admonished people. Indeed, Senator Abetz, it was not Mr Shorten who was highlighted as one of the three people on this occasion; it was Ralph Blewitt, it was Julia Gillard and it was Leah Charlson who were all admonished for overlooking something once—not twice, three times or four times over several months.

The core issue is whether Commissioner Heydon's position in this case has become partisan. That is the core issue. What is evolving are, of course, other associations that are important. This gives me a chance to reflect on a comment that I made yesterday about a link between the invitation—and I was not quite sure who but it might have been the Law Council or the Law Society of New South Wales that had a link to this invitation that I questioned, but, as it turns out, it was actually the New South Wales Bar Association. Professional associations of lawyers, in my view, do need to be careful about their party political links and connections because, at the end of the day, despite quite eminent appointments in the past, their partisanship in the future may become an issue as it has in relation to this royal commission.

The other associations, as it turns out over the last day or so, have highlighted the close relationship that Commissioner Heydon has to the now Prime Minister through the constitutional monarchy legal committee, through his position on the selection panel for Mr Abbott's Rhodes scholarship, and one wonders what else. The key issue here, though, is that the Prime Minister has failed to appoint someone to this trade union royal commission who can maintain a sense of balance and impartiality. This is the Prime Minister's fail and he has failed because we all know it has always been a witch-hunt. (Time expired)

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

The venom and hatred that the Australian Labor Party have been spewing forth against Dyson Heydon is motivated by one reason and one reason alone—that is, the revelations that have emerged from this royal commission. There is the revelation that Mr Shorten hid from the Australian people for eight years the fact that he had been given a $40,000 donation in the form of a paid staff member to be his personal campaign manager. That person was, it appears, misdescribed—some would use harsher words—as a research officer for the particular company, in circumstances where he was clearly not so engaged.

How do we know all this? Before he had to give his evidence, Mr Shorten changed the documentation to delete 'nil' from his declaration to tell the Australian people that somehow, somewhere, a $40,000 contribution was made. How you could overlook such a matter is, quite frankly, beyond me. Why it would be misdescribed is also beyond me. But not all the evidence has been given. What we do know is that the Labor Party have changed their own declarations in relation to Mr Shorten's campaign for his seat those eight years ago.

We also know that, because of the royal commission—without any findings or recommendations being made—Mr Shorten's very, very good mate and successor in title in the Australian Workers Union had to resign as Government Whip in the upper house in Victoria. We know that. This is all about payback. It is about revenge. It is about shooting the messenger. It is about hoping to besmirch Mr Heydon in such a way that the actions that have now been exposed will not be seen in the light they deserve to be seen in.

But for the royal commission, we would never have known that the Australian Workers Union, led by Mr Shorten, had traded away workers' entitlements in exchange for what appears to be donations to the union. So cleaners can be paid less, mushroom pickers can be paid less, circus workers can be paid less—indeed, use was made of the Work Choices regime to ensure that these conditions were driven down by the Australian Workers Union. And—surprise, surprise—the businesses that benefited from these sleazy deals just happened to make donations to the Australian Workers Union. But for the royal commission, these sleazy dealings would never have been exposed. But for the royal commission, the Australian people would still be in the dark, like the mushroom pickers at Chiquita Mushrooms. But for the royal commission, we would not know—and this would have to be one of the lowest acts of all—that moneys donated by companies to assist people with drug and alcohol issues were misapplied; 80 per cent went to the CFMEU and only 20 per cent to the proper fund. Can you get any lower than taking money from the needs of those who have alcohol and drug issues?

What do we know about the money that goes into the Australian Workers Union? What do we know about the money that goes into the CFMEU? Thousands—indeed, over the years, millions—of dollars have gone directly to the Australian Labor Party. Their source of funding has been exposed by this royal commission: money from shonky deals with employers and money skimmed off charitable organisations goes to the unions, which in turn donate to the Labor Party. This is what motivates this attack on Mr Heydon, and I suggest to the Labor Party that they take into account the Law Council of Australia's admonition today to stop it. (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers from Senator Brandis and Senator Abetz in question time today. Defending the indefensible appears to be the new philosophy of the coalition government, and today we heard more attempts from an embattled government to defend what has been outed to the community as what everyone now clearly understands are the political motivations behind the royal commission into trade unions.

In question time today Senator Abetz and the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, were desperately trying to defend a royal commission that has focused a lot of its attention on previous Labor leaders. In the last week I think we have all seen it exposed as a political witch-hunt, which we have always said it was. The royal commissioner, Mr Dyson Heydon, summed it up perfectly himself when he said that the judiciary had to possess 'a measure of independence from the wrath of disgruntled governments or other groups'. We all know that a strong, democratic nation is built upon the pillar of an impartial and independent justice system, and one that is seen at all times to be above the political fray.

This government appears to be happy to trash that framework, and to use the royal commission as a vehicle to pursue its political opponents and as a smokescreen to cover up its own lack of courage to tackle some of its ideas in relation to industrial relations itself. Perhaps the government is still burnt from Work Choices and hides behind the protection of a royal commission.

The episode we have seen playing out over the royal commission and the way that the government has responded exemplifies everything that is wrong with this government, and puts it out there for all to see very clearly just how low this government has reduced itself to.

In responses in question time—and this is symptomatic of this government's approach—we have seen ministers ignore obvious problems, like the acceptance by the royal commissioner of the opportunity to give the Sir Garfield Barwick address. They deny that there was a problem and they dig deeper in defence—really dogged, blind defence—of a mate and colleague. This is despite very clear evidence and opinion from people with experience in how to handle matters of bias and potential conflicts of interest—providing very extensive responses to some of the problems presented from the position the royal commissioner finds himself in.

There is no doubt from where we sit that this royal commission was always politically motivated—spending $61 million on a royal commission to pursue your political opponents. It was done before with the previous Liberal government inquiry into trade unions, and it is being done again. There is some irony in this pursuit of political opponents and the expenditure of this amount of money in this place this week, when the cleaners who clean this building are undertaking protected action because they are after a $1.80 pay rise. It really shows how wrong this government's priorities are.

When you look at the question of bias and of apprehended bias, the test is whether a 'fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge'—in this case the royal commissioner—'might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question before them'.

We have watched this situation roll out over the past week, and people on the streets are talking about this subject. I do not think that I have heard even one person say that they think there is not at least a perception of apprehended bias presented by this unfortunate situation. More than that, we have heard the unfortunate response from the government to this situation and have seen their doggedness in trying to defend a colleague and friend, and they are refusing to address this problem. Whilst it remains unaddressed there will not be any faith in the royal commission, in its processes or, indeed, in the report that it will hand down if it proceeds to an end. It again shows the lack of leadership at a political level across the country.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers but more particularly to take note of the questions. Here we are at a time when South Australia has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation and people are leaving jobs, and yet every question in question time from those opposite has gone to the issue of this royal commission.

No matter what Senator Gallagher says about apprehended bias, it does not change the fact that the royal commission is exposing is deep-seated corruption within the union movement. A number of things have been revealed during this royal commission about the bribes, the blackmail, the bullying and the criminal offences that, as a direct result of this royal commission, have seen union organisers arrested and charged with criminal offences. We have heard about the tight linkages between the union movement and members opposite. As a result of the royal commission we have seen Mr Shorten, as Leader of the Opposition, scramble to correct the record after eight years of hiding a $40,000 donation to his campaign. He has scrambled to correct the record before the light of transparency provided by this royal commission could be shone onto his circumstances. Those opposite are defending the indefensible not just because of that conduct but, more importantly, because of the things that are important to Australians—things like the economy and jobs for our citizens and our children. The union movement is now running a scare campaign against initiatives of this government around things like free trade agreements. This government has signed three free trade agreements that former governments, particularly the former Labor government, were never able to achieve, yet we have seen the Electrical Trade Union blatantly lying on TV about the impact on jobs of the free trade agreement. Anyone who watches TV at the moment will see the consistent ads coming up—always designed to tug at the heartstrings—of a dad talking to his son and saying how jobs will not be available because Tony Abbott did not choose him.

In hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were questioned at length about this issue by Labor Party members of the committee. What became clear, in answer after answer after answer, was that that campaign by the unions is just wrong. It is inaccurate and they are peddling lies as a scare campaign because they see this as an opportunity to bolster the political stakes for the Labor Party heading into the next election. The department provided quite detailed explanations and it is very clear that China has been brought into line with most other countries in terms of how Australia deals with them. All workers who come in have to have the relevant qualifications, there has to be market testing, jobs have to be advertised and Australians have to get first choice. There are time limits for anyone who is brought in, and they have to be paid Australian wages and work under Australian conditions. All of the claims of the union movement are wrong. That is why it is so disappointing that the opposition would spend the whole of question time today debating the motivations of the commissioner rather than addressing the substance of the evidence which has emerged during the commission about the fact that the union movement—which now represents a very small percentage of the Australian workforce—is, for political reasons, actually undermining measures taken by this government to create jobs, grow our economy and provide our young people with a future.

If there is a failure of leadership, if there is a failure of judgement, surely it is in the focus of the opposition on short-term political expediency as opposed to calling their supporters—and I am the first to acknowledge that unions do have a place—to account for the corrupt activity, for the lies which are economic vandalism and for sabotaging the future of this nation.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker is concerned that we spent the whole of question time asking questions about whether Commissioner Heydon is credible and whether he should continue, because of his links to the Liberal Party. Do you know what, Senator Fawcett? It is our job on this side to ask questions. You talked about South Australia—

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

Senator Bilyk, could you address your remarks through the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy President. Of course, Senator Fawcett has now left the chamber, but I did not see him standing up and defending the people of South Australia on the issue about whether or not submarines should be built in South Australia. Nor have I seen him stand up and defend the people of South Australia with regard to what is happening with job development in their state—or any of the other issues in that state. So I do not know that he is quite the right person to be questioning us about the questions we are asking. We have every right to ask questions about Commissioner Heydon. It is not disrespectful; it is asking questions and seeking answers. To be honest, I was a bit surprised that my questions got such a reaction from those on the other side, who interjected so loudly and behaved so badly. They were questions like: 'When was the Prime Minister's office first aware that Commissioner Heydon was giving the address at a Liberal Party function? Was the Prime Minister invited? Did any of the politician lawyers raise any concerns with the Prime Minister's office regarding Commissioner Heydon's lack of impartiality in addressing the New South Wales Liberal Party while the royal commission was still afoot?' The last question I asked was about the Prime Minister saying last year that he trusted Dyson Heydon's judgement and he was very happy to put us—the government—in the hands of Dyson Heydon and see where this commission went. The question after that was, 'Does the PM still have this continued trust in Commissioner Heydon based on the fact that a partisan inquiry is exactly what he wanted?'

I was amazed at the response that got—the interjections and the yelling at me. I thought it was absolutely surprising, and it makes me think they doth protest too much. We had what I would call a rather disappointing question time today and we are pretty used to it from those on that side. The Royal Commissioner—

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you asked better questions you would get better answers.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the catcalling, more or less. It was the interjections and the completely over-the-top reaction of those on your side, Senator Bushby—through you, Mr Deputy President, to the senator. But the royal commissioner, Mr Dyson Heydon, is another of the Prime Minister's captain's picks. According to the Guide to Judicial Conduct, published for the Council of Chief Justices Australia and New Zealand:

Although active participation in or membership of a political party before appointment would not of itself justify allegations of judicial bias or an appearance of bias, it is expected that a judge on appointment will sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties such as might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fundraising events or through contribution to a political party, should be avoided.

While those opposite seek to defend the trade union royal commissioner and his continued role I would like to cite some other advice given by a very senior legal figure as to why Justice Heydon should disqualify himself. In 2002 this figure said:

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).

In 2011 the same person wrote, 'the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification'. And you know who wrote that? Dyson Heydon himself wrote that.

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

Senator Fawcett on a point of order.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order regarding standing order 193—reflections on members. I want to point out the inaccuracy of the reflection of the senator opposite saying that I have never raised my voice in this place regarding submarine construction in South Australia. In more than a dozen speeches here as well as opinion pieces, members opposite well know, I am a strong advocate, and I seek her to withdraw and correct the record—

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

There is no point of order. If you claim to have been misrepresented there are abilities to correct that and it is not up to the chair to determine the truth or otherwise or accuracy of what other senators may say in this place.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously today I am upsetting a few people over there—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Just hitting a few nails on the head I think, Senator Abetz. That advice came from Dyson Heydon himself— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.