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) to questions without notice asked by Senators Collins and Conroy today relating to the Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.

Given that Senator Abetz denied me leave, I will address some of the matters I would have raised earlier in taking note of answers to questions from me and Senator Conroy.

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

Why don't you make it Senator Wong too?

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

Mr Deputy President, I hope that my time will not incorporate lengthy interjections such as those from Senator Ian MacDonald.

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

It probably will not.

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

Thank you very much. I have reflected in both yesterday's question time and today's that when the government is in serious difficulty we see it coming forward with the insults. Yesterday it was reported that in the discussions related to questions about Commissioner Heydon—

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

You're not insulting Dyson Heydon? What double standards!

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

My question to Senator Brandis yesterday did not insult Commissioner Heydon. It sought some straightforward information that the government has been seeking to conceal for quite some time. Instead, in his conditional withdrawal Senator Brandis claimed that I uttered words attacking Commissioner Heydon. This is simply untrue. I invite all senators to review the Hansard of yesterday's question time. I did not hear what Senator Brandis said in question time yesterday because of all of the noise in the chamber. I thank the President for his comments this morning to that effect. On reviewing the Hansard I saw that I had been described as 'dishonest and sleazy', which is disgraceful. I will not repeat today the words that Senator Payne described as inaudible, because they were obviously heard. The point is the insults that this government is coming forward with to try to conceal its fragile political status. Why is it fragile? It is fragile because the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, has put his trust in the judgement of people such as Senator Brandis to make balanced decisions on who should conduct a royal commission. We see now from answers to questions today that Senator Brandis did not have an appropriate process for determining someone. He had no short list. The cabinet had no short list. He picked Commissioner Heydon. He claims it was on the basis that he wanted 'the best black-letter lawyer'. I do not know that being a black-letter lawyer is necessarily the best criterion for someone to look into complex workplace relations matters and the behaviour of registered organisations. However, I can understand that Senator Brandis would be happy to have a capital-C conservative lawyer, which is what I understand a black-letter lawyer to be. Let us look at the other point that I raised in questions today, which is about the secrecy—

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

This is the guy that Bob Carr appointed.

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

Order, Senator MacDonald!

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

I cannot follow her argument.

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

That is not a matter for me. What is a matter for me is interjections which are disorderly. I am calling you to order.

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

The other issue I raised today was not an attack but a question about the costs involved in the royal commission. What were we told by Senator Brandis today in answer to that? 'It's a matter of form. We don't provide information such as this on costs.' Yesterday he could not tell us whether it was a special circumstance that he personally had approved. We are still waiting for that answer. Today he cannot tell us why we can get information about the costs involved for counsel assisting, Mr Stoljar, but we cannot get the information—other than through cabinet leaks—that might be relevant to the costs of Commissioner Heydon.

We need to understand the full costs of this exercise. This royal commission is turning into a farce. The secrecy, the lack of transparency and the decision-making processes demonstrated by this government are the issue. I have not attacked Commissioner Heydon, but I am attacking the way this government has dealt with this matter.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to the claims and the allegations made by the honourable senator opposite, I echo her sentiments and reflect that I, too, am disappointed in some of the conduct in this chamber during question time. But, rather than lay blame on the government benches, I draw to the attention of Senator Collins the behaviour and conduct of the Labor Party. It is truly outrageous that they belittle, they yell, they scream and they get hysterical whilst ministers are trying genuinely to answer questions.

Yet I understand it in the respect that they are seeking a distraction from their own failings. These distractions take on many forms, because the government is absolutely interested in responding to the priorities of the Australian people—and that is about jobs, about growing the economy and about providing opportunity for people going forward. Those opposite are not interested in those good-news stories. They are not interested in those productive stories. What they are interested in doing is laying a smokescreen down to hide the malfeasance that is inculcated in the union movement and has been exposed so deeply by the royal commission. So, because they cannot control, for want of a better word, the royal commission or influence the events there, they target the commissioner himself. They have targeted the commissioner in the most derogatory of manners with these pejorative slurs and these allegations that they cannot back up with any substance, and they do it because the royal commission has exposed the depth of union corruption.

It goes to the very, very top, where we are seeing favours traded by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, in his time as the boss of a union in order to enrich or ingratiate the union at the expense of employees. Some may be able to justify that; I think it smells, and it has been exposed. We have also seen Mr Shorten receive pecuniary benefits in the form of employees and campaign workers, paid for by others and not disclosed. These are not mere oversights; they are not just the price of a Mars Bar or a meal at a local Chinese restaurant. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of dollars when it comes to the unions.

So, rather than the opposition trying to play a constructive and positive role in the affairs of the country, they are seeking to denigrate one of our best and most learned former justices in Dyson Heydon. It does them no good, I have to say, because the Australian people are actually interested in outcomes rather than the fire and brimstone produced by those opposite. None, or few, can conjure up the fire and brimstone like Senator Wong or Senator Conroy or even Senator Collins, with her confected outrage about how she has been harshly dealt with and poorly treated.

Yesterday's question time was very disappointing, I have to say. In one sense, it is very fortunate that it was not broadcast to the Australian people—in that they would be very disappointed in the conduct of the members opposite—but I am disappointed in the sense that the Australian people did not get to see firsthand just how shameless and how shallow the modern Labor Party has become. It is no longer about policy; it is no longer about doing the best thing by Australians; it is only about power for power's sake. We are seeing that through the royal commission exposing the union movement, where it was all about getting votes to control more of the Labor Party so you could get more of your people into government, get the largesse of government, become ministers and hold positions of authority.

That is not what this place is meant to be about. Politics is not meant to be about that; it is meant to be about coming in here with a vision of how you would like to shape the country—a vision of how you would like to help Australians do better. We are going to have differences in that vision, but it is not meant to be about self. That is one of the things the modern labour movement need to align themselves with. It should not be about them as individuals; it should not be about enriching the union movement; it should not be about progressing up the greasy pole. It should be about lifting Australians and helping Australia to become better and better.

If I sound disappointed, I am—because you need a good opposition to make governments even better, and I want to see governments of all stripes made much better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did my best to listen to the contributions, word for word, of Senator Sterle and Senator Collins to this motion as they spoke earlier this afternoon. I thought I captured all of Senator Sterle's assertions of the relevant facts, but it is important in this case to actually outline that those facts do not support the conclusion that those opposite have arrived at. The single, most important fact here is that, upon realising and upon being made aware of it—a fact to which he has admitted—Justice Heydon made it clear he would not address that particular function. He did not actually undertake any activity that is party political.

Let us put this in context as I try not to assign a motive to those with whom I have a different view. If there were some consistency in approach from those opposite, one would not have to do this. I cannot help but refer to some other instances where I have not heard any expression of outrage from those opposite. In these instances the lectures were delivered, the functions were held, the person in question turned up and gave the address. It is the exact opposite of what Justice Heydon has done in this case, when he, rightly, said it would be inappropriate for him to deliver the address. He made that clear and released all the facts immediately upon him becoming aware of them.

On 11 November last year, and fortuitously for the Labor Party I realise that some were discussing the Sir Garfield Barwick Address, His Honour Judge Greg Woods delivered the Frank Walker Memorial Lecture to the New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Ryan, just resume your seat. Senator Ryan.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Before anyone rises to correct me, it is Labor Lawyers spelt simply with an O as in L-A-B-O-R. It is not any suggestion that it is a small L or people simply working in labour law. I might also say, as was highlighted in the other place within the last hour, that Justices Gaudron, McHugh and Kirby all addressed Labor Lawyers functions, but there was no cry from those opposite. Again, it is immediately apparent to anyone that examines the facts in this case that Justice Heydon, upon realising this function was associated with the Liberal Party, immediately made clear that it was not appropriate for him to do it and withdrew from the function.

This is where we get to the truth of the matter. I have rarely seen such—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Ryan, resume your seat. I ask the Senate to come to order, and Senator Ryan should be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have, in my seven-and-a-bit years in this place, rarely seem such contrived and confected outrage. One can only go to the motive of those opposite. As the news of endemic corruption in certain parts of Australia's labour movement bleeds out across the country, in an attempt to refer the pain or hide it, the Labor Party opposite sort of stubs its toe and tries to contrive some outrage of an event that did not occur.

The most important fact here is that Justice Heydon immediately withdrew. Those opposite are trying to pull together issues of the cost of a royal commission and issues of the timing of emails. They will not accept at face value the word of the commissioner and they try to imply that, somehow, there is a party political activity happening here, and it simply did not happen. There is no debate over that fact; it did not occur.

I note that Senator Collins, in her contribution during question time, referred to the cost of the royal commission. Quite rightly, given the scale of racketeering and illegal conduct in certain parts of the labour movement, particularly in my home state of Victoria, particularly here in the ACT as has already been brought to public attention by this commission, the costs to the community in terms of public infrastructure—every hospital we build, every private building of any significant size and all our infrastructure—are much, much greater.

This is an attempt at diversion. It is an attempt at diversion from the news that the Labor Party opposite is desperate that the Australian people not know. They do not want the Australian people to know that their masters, their mistresses, those who they work for, those who control their preselections, those who control and provide their slush funds, are involved in serious activity that is being uncovered by this royal admission and has already led to activity in the justice space which I will not go into in any more detail. Before anyone mentions any other events, that is the simple point that the Labor Party is trying to hide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to.