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

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General's confirmation that he spoke with Commissioner Heydon about his planned address to the Liberal Party fundraiser, the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture. On how many occasions has the Attorney-General picked up the phone to Commissioner Heydon since the royal commission was established? And would next time you do pick up the phone to the commissioner, will you ask him why he did not ask a single question on the brief of evidence provided to him of the $1.4 million that Kathy Jackson stole from HSU members?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! On my left.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order! Senator Conroy, you have asked your question. I am just debating as to whether the second part of that question is in order. I will allow it to stand. The Attorney-General can treat the second part of the question as he deems fit.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! On both sides.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are getting a little sensitive, aren't they? Senator Conroy is now using the opportunity to wage his own vendettas in the fratricidal ugly world of Labor Party politics. In relation to the first part of the question, I would have to check but I would do recall communicating with Mr Heydon on the occasion when the government approached him to request that he extend the life of the royal commission. Obviously as a matter of courtesy it was necessary to make that request of him. I cannot immediately call to mind at any other occasions when I have spoken to Mr Heydon during the currency of the royal commission, but I will check.

In relation to the second part of Senator Conroy's question, if I understood it correctly and I am sure I did, I am being chastised for failing to interfere with the operation of the royal commission, being chastised for not suggesting to or insisting that the commissioner pursue a certain line of inquiry in a certain way. Well, of course I would not. Anybody who sought to interfere with a royal commission would be committing a crime.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General advise if there was the shortlist for the position of royal commissioner? What criteria was applied to the appointments? Did it include political impartiality?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Heydon was selected by the government on my recommendation because I was looking for somebody with a reputation so stainless, so perfect that nobody could possibly criticise him without making themselves a fool, and you have fallen ride into the trap, Senator Conroy. Anybody who inquired into corruption in the trade union movement was bound to have mire and dirt and sleaze thrown at them by the protectors of the organised criminals in the trade union movement on the opposition benches.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order: direct relevance. I would ask you to draw the attention of the attorney to the specific questions asked about the shortlist and criteria. The attorney has talked about the fact that it was his decision and that is fine, but I would like to see whether you could draw to his attention those particular points in the questions.

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

The Attorney-General has been directly relevant in relation to portions of the question. The Attorney-General has 18 seconds in which to complete his answer.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what the government was looking for was the best black-letter lawyer in the country with a reputation for personal integrity and impartiality so utterly stainless that nobody who hoped to be taken seriously would dare to criticise him. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is not respected lawyer Julian Burnside correct in his assessment of Commissioner Heydon that:

…it was really never a tenable possibility for him to appear to be impartial on the Royal Commission while being so closely associated with the Liberal party as to accept that invitation.

And as a honourable person he should step aside. Why is it Senator Brandis failed to follow his cabinet instructions to say that Labor attacks on Justice Dyson Heydon reveal their true objective: to stop the royal commission into union governance? Why haven't you used that again? (Time expired).

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Julian Burnside, whom I know slightly, hardly approaches this as an impartial observer. Yet even Mr Burnside has made the same point that I make about the Hon. Dyson Heydon: that he is a person of utterly unimpeachable integrity, a man with no politics, appointed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal by the Labor government of Mr Bob Carr, appointed to the High Court of Australia by the coalition government of John Howard. But, rather than one individual lawyer, let us remember what the Law Council of Australia had to say yesterday:

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

That is the voice of the Law Council of Australia representing every constituent body of the legal profession in Australia. That is the voice of the legal profession in this country— (Time expired).