Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Royal Commissioner, the Honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC, agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 at the Castlereagh Boutique Hotel in Sydney;

(b) the invitation to the Liberal Party fundraiser states that "cheques should be made payable to: Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division)";

(c) the invitation also states, "All proceeds from this event will be applied to State election campaigning"; and

(d) that Mr Heydon has failed to rule out addressing Liberal Party fundraisers in the future; and

(2) censures the Prime Minister for failing to immediately sack his Royal Commissioner and establishing a Royal Commission that was biased from the start.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Royal Commissioner, the Honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC, agreed to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 at the Castlereagh Boutique Hotel in Sydney;

(b) the invitation to the Liberal Party fundraiser states that "cheques should be made payable to: Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division)";

(c) the invitation also states, "All proceeds from this event will be applied to State election campaigning"; and

(d) that Mr Heydon has failed to rule out addressing Liberal Party fundraisers in the future; and

(2) censures the Prime Minister for failing to immediately sack his Royal Commissioner and establishing a Royal Commission that was biased from the start.

We have no choice but to suspend standing orders when we try to pursue a situation through questions and the Prime Minister cannot even maintain the same answers within the space of 30 minutes. What is the point of trying to pursue this issue through question time? It is one thing when the Prime Minister cannot agree with his Attorney-General; but he cannot even agree with himself between his first answer and his most recent answer. We have somebody before us who is willing to mislead this parliament, who thinks that he can get away with saying one thing and then saying the exact opposite only 30 minutes later and maybe no-one will notice. Well, people will notice, and people need to, because of the situation that has emerged today.

The events of today have exposed three things. In the first instance, the royal commissioner is conflicted. He is biased and he is conflicted. Second, if we are to take into account the argument that he has put in his own defence and that others have put in his defence, that maybe he was unaware it was a fundraiser, then he is incompetent. In his job, he is meant to be the person who knows what questions to ask. Checking who is organising an event is not a bad question to ask. So, the royal commissioner is conflicted and biased, or, at best—the best we can end up with out of this—he is incompetent.

But the third thing is what this says about the Liberal Party. What we have learnt today is what this says about the Liberal Party. We had the situation previously—and it was a sign that we should have taken notice of—where Ian Harper, at the same time we had the Harper review, was wanting to attend fundraisers for the member for North Sydney. Maybe we should have realised then that the Liberal Party know absolutely no shame when it comes to misappropriating the requests and doing things the wrong way by having statutory officers engage in fundraising events for their party, because the one group that definitely knew the whole way through how inappropriate this was was the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party knew it was a fundraiser when they issued the invitation. The Liberal Party knew exactly what they were doing when they put this request out. When the front cover of the document has the Liberal Party logo, it is probably a hint that it is a Liberal Party function. But, if the Prime Minister does not get the hint at the Liberal Party logo—and we are working on the basis that he may have seen it before—the reason that we have to suspend standing orders and cannot pursue this simply through questions—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have previously ruled on the use of props by members opposite. The member is utilising a prop, and I would ask you—

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. There is a difference in the practice between question time and speeches.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, if that hint was not taken, maybe this would be a hint that the Prime Minister was willing to own up to at the beginning of question time but scurried away from the moment the questions continued: 'Cheques should be made payable to the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales division'—probably a political function. But, maybe if he did not twig at that, how about this one, Prime Minister: 'A receipt will be issued. All proceeds from this event will be applied to state election campaigning.' Maybe that is a hint.

What we have ended up with is a situation where somebody who was employed and appointed on the basis that he should know what questions to ask and should know something about probity instead has landed us in this situation. Make no mistake; the statement that went out today does not end the issue. Those opposite have wanted to say, 'He has withdrawn; it's over.' But read the words of that statement when he withdrew from the event. He could not attend any event that was described as a Liberal Party event. He would be unable to give this address, at least while he is in the position of royal commissioner. So he is already flagging, 'Hey, guys; don't forget about me. The moment this one's over, I'll be back there for your fundraiser.' He could not even hold back from making sure that he gets invited to the Liberal Party fundraisers again in the future.

You would have thought that the former Justice Heydon would have known, given that these are the words of a judgement he himself delivered in the case of British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie in 2011, not that long ago. I quote from paragraph 139:

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. … it is the perception of the hypothetical observer that provides the yardstick.

Be in no doubt: if a juror behaved this way, they would be off the jury immediately. If a juror behaved this way, they would be gone. But somehow this Prime Minister reckons that a royal commissioner can behave this way and that is fine. The reason goes to the very character of this Prime Minister and why he started this royal commission to begin with: because he wanted someone who would be partisan. He wanted someone who would be biased. He wanted someone who would engage in—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is debating the substance, not debating why this motion is important and should be brought forward. That is what he needs to be debating.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Watson and ask him to bring himself back to the motion.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have got to say, if these are not reasons why we should suspend standing orders, I do not know what are. The problem that we have in front of us is that the only way to be able to pursue this debate is to suspend standing orders, because the Prime Minister will not honestly answer a question. And we know he cannot answer a question honestly because, in the space of half an hour, he gave the opposite answer for the same question.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Rankin, it is your final warning!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked, 'Which one do you agree with?' he says, 'Both. Black, white—they're both true.' That is where the Prime Minister got to in question time. But he also said, 'If you want to bring on a debate then let's have it.' So we said, 'Okay; we'll have a debate.' Do they give leave for it? No. And then, when we start to refer to issues in the debate during the suspension, they say, 'You can't do that—oh no. Quick, jump up with a point of order.' Those opposite—their embarrassment is for one reason only: they have been found out, found out by the entire Australian people. There is nowhere to hide for them on this one.

A royal commissioner cannot be a guest at a political party fundraiser. A royal commissioner cannot be a guest at a Liberal Party fundraiser. And those opposite know it. But, disturbingly, their party, back in April, thought this was okay. They have known. The Australian people have found out in the last few hours. Those opposite have known since April, and they never thought it was a problem. They have known since April, and they thought it was fine to continue. Those opposite thought: 'If this is what's going on, that's further proof that this commissioner is doing the exact sort of job that he was appointed to.' That is what they are doing. We have the recommendations that we had from the Prime Minister. He said, 'You appoint someone of this man's standing because you trust to his judgement.' Well, I bet you do, but the Australian people have no reason to trust when what they are given is conflict and bias.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second this motion. Standing orders should be suspended because I cannot imagine a more important matter for this parliament to be debating than a censure of the Prime Minister in relation to the royal commission that he has established.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This royal commissioner, by his own conduct, has given the appearance of bias. And let no one be under any mistake about what the concern is. It is not being suggested that Dyson Heydon is actually biased. Of that we do not know and of that we make no further comment. It is the appearance of bias that is of concern; it is the appearance given to every fair-minded Australian, every fair-minded observer who is looking at this conduct, of a royal commissioner appointed by this Prime Minister agreeing to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. That is the problem.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert is warned!

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the problem which cannot now be cured and no amount of obfuscation by this government, no amount of obfuscation by this Liberal Party, can obscure what has occurred. That is why standing orders should be suspended—so that we can debate properly an entirely called for censure of this Prime Minister.

This royal commissioner should resign—he should resign because by his own actions he has created the appearance of bias and he has discredited and compromised every single further action by this royal commission. If he does not resign, he should be sacked by this government. The Prime Minister who appointed him, with his captain's pick, should dismiss this royal commissioner. If he does not resign and if he is not sacked by the Prime Minister and this royal commission proceeds, its findings will be of no value to the people of Australia because they are already discredited because of this extraordinary error of judgement made by this royal commissioner. This Liberal Party royal commission into trade unions has spent over $80 million of taxpayers' money so far pursuing the political opponents of the Abbott government. Of course corruption is to be deplored, of course allegations of serious misconduct are to be thoroughly investigated and of course anyone involved in illegal behaviour in any workplace, whether unionist or employer, should feel the full weight of the law—and Labor has made clear again and again that we have no tolerance for corruption of any kind. But this royal commission, Mr Abbott's royal commission, should be seen for what it is. I do not know why members opposite are laughing but clearly they do not think this is a serious a matter about which standing orders should be suspended.

This royal commission is a tawdry political exercise by a government that is concerned only with its own ideological obsessions and not with the needs of the Australian people. The Prime Minister created this royal commission to smear the reputation of all unions in this country, and wherever possible the Prime Minister wanted this royal commission to smear the government's political opponents in the Labor Party if it could. This royal commission was set up by the Abbott government and has been conducted by a royal commissioner hand-picked by the Prime Minister to achieve political outcomes—not outcomes for the benefit of Australia but the political outcomes that this Abbott government wants to pursue. The highly politicised nature of this royal commission has been plain for all to see from the first day of hearings. Those of you who were watching it all would recall that the first day of hearings was concerned with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard about events that were said to have occurred more than 20 years ago—and it turned up nothing. But that was the purpose of this royal commission; that was the first smear that this royal commission wanted to land. That is why standing orders should be suspended. This royal commission has also dragged the leader of the federal opposition before it to answer questions. Once again a Labor leader had to answer hundreds and hundreds of questions about matters in the past, and it led nowhere. The misuse of executive power which is represented by this royal commission is unprecedented in this country.

Mr Fletcher interjecting

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bradfield will cease interjecting.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is a country that has prided itself on respect for our democratic heritage, respect for our institutions, and it has been a respect that has been bipartisan. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ) ( ): On this my 48th birthday I was thinking I was not going to get a birthday present. But I was wrong—the opposition has provided me with a lovely birthday present, which is the most spectacular own-goal I have seen in this 44th Parliament. What a spectacular own-goal from the opposition—the very subject that they want hidden from the public view, namely their tawdry relationship with the Australian union movement, they have decided to place it front and centre of Australian political debate here in question time and all day in parliament. For months the Labor Party have attempted to hide their relationship with the CFMEU, the MUA, the AWU and every other union in the trade union royal commission, even to the extent of pretending that they had no involvement with them.

Mr Perrett interjecting

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They never want to talk about the trade unions royal commission ever—and one can understand why—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Adelaide is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have helpfully brought the interim report of the trade union royal commission, which I am happy to share with the opposition—

Mr Husic interjecting

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a).

The member for Chifley then left the chamber—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is long reading—it is much longer than my book—but it is extremely interesting reading. No wonder they want to hide their relationship with the union movement. They particularly want to hide the Leader of the Opposition's relationship with Cleanevent Australia Pty Ltd and with Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd. They particularly tried to hide the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to trade away penalty rates for the poorest workers in the cleaning industry in exchange for cash for his union when he was the secretary of the union to pay the memberships—

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to refer to the sub judice rule. The practice is quite clear—whilst members are entitled to refer to matters that have been raised in evidence in the royal commission, they are not entitled to draw conclusions. Indeed—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth will resume her seat.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for Perth will resume her seat. I have heard enough of the point of order. If you look at Practice on page 189, you will see the history on points of order. There have been rulings on this in the past.

Mr Speaker—

Resume your seat—I am calling the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have wanted over the course of the last few months to hide their relationship with the union movement—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Adelaide is warned, I will remind her!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and tried to reduce the trade union royal commission in the public eye and the public thinking. For example, how do they explain why, if the payments from Winslow Constructors of $225,000 to the union movement were above board and legitimate, they were being described as 'safety training'?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Practice is very, very clear about this matter. This is a motion to suspend standing orders. It is about the need for this House to consider the conduct of the royal commissioner. It has nothing to do—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard enough from the member for Isaacs. He can resume his seat. He does not have the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point that I am making—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House can wait. The Practice makes a number of points and there have been various statements from Speakers over the years on this subject. It makes two points, as you would well be aware. There is a difference between sub judice with respect to court cases and royal commissions and, frankly, it would be a ridiculous restriction of debate if matters that have been raised in public and reported in the media could not be aired in the national parliament. This has been raised, I think, on three occasions before by the member for Isaacs. I am calling the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, the point that is being made is that the reason the suspension of standing orders should not be agreed to is because it is simply a massive smokescreen from the Labor Party's embarrassment about their tawdry relationship with the union movement. I am giving examples from the trade union royal commission about why the Labor Party would be embarrassed. Why would they be embarrassed? They are embarrassed because of revelations like that about Winslow Constructors—

Mr Danby interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne Ports is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and their $225,000 payment to the AWU for so-called 'safety training'.

The second reason that the Labor Party has scored a massive own goal today is that they find themselves on the side of traducing one of the most eminent jurists in Australia today: Dyson Heydon, a longstanding member of the Australian High Court. I never heard the Labor Party criticising Dyson Heydon when he was a member of the High Court. One of the most eminent and serious jurists in Australia today was appointed to do a very serious and important job, which is get to the bottom of trade union corruption and thuggery.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Time and time again in this House I have explained how the CFMEU is on the wrong side of the law and how this side of the House wants to bring the rule of law back to construction sites. Even the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have admitted that there needs to be a change to the attitude of the CFMEU. In fact, the opposition suggested that they should be required not to wear their colours at the construction sites—

Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—

Ms Ryan interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Lalor will cease interjecting!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We think they should be required to go further than that—

Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, there is a need to bring the union within the law. I would expect most people to support that in this House. The trade union royal commission is an important and serious part of government today. Therefore, we appointed to that a very serious and eminent jurist, Dyson Heydon, from the High Court. So Labor finds themselves on the side of bashing the umpire on this occasion—of taking out a political baseball bat and attacking the umpire—attacking the head of the royal commission. Rather than recognising his reputation for seriousness and for fairness, they decided, because they are so obsessed with the union movement—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that they want to find themselves on the side of attacking the royal commissioner—attacking former Justice Dyson Heydon—

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bagman!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He called him a bagman! One of the members of the opposition front bench has just called Dyson Heydon a bagman!

Opposition members interjecting—

My eyesight might not be good but my hearing is very good! He should withdraw that! He should be required to withdraw that statement!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I require the member to withdraw the statement.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They find themselves so out of touch with community expectations about the union movement and corruption and thuggery that they are now describing a former justice of the High Court, a royal commissioner of the standing of Dyson Heydon, as a bagman! That is how badly Labor has fallen because of their obsession and because of their symbiotic relationship with the trade union movement. And that is why they are unfit for public office in this country.

If the Labor Party were ever to be back on the government benches again we would see what is happening in Victoria right now under Daniel Andrews, where the CFMEU is back at the cabinet table. That is what would happen in this country, nationally; we would see the union movement back at the cabinet table. It is bad enough that they will not support the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is bad enough that they will not support the Registered Organisations Commission. They are now traducing the reputation of the royal commissioner, Dyson Heydon.

Well, you will not get that on this side of the House. We stand up for the worker on this side of the House. We are not trading away their penalty rates at Clean Event, or Winslow Constructors or nameless other businesses that we do not know about yet.

The other thing we are seeing today is the Labor Party borrowing from the Keating playbook. When this happened before, many years ago, I was in this parliament—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will remove herself under 94(a)! She has been warned twice.

The member for Griffith then left the chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

when there was a royal commission into the Penny Easton affair, which members will remember. Kenneth Marks was appointed as the royal commissioner. Paul Keating's response was not to look at the merits of the case but it was to attack the royal commissioner, Kenneth Marks. The immediate, instinctive, knee-jerk reaction of the Labor Party then was not to respect the courts—

Ms King interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat will cease interjecting!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

not to respect royal commissions; it was to try to attack, biliously, the royal commissioner Kenneth Marks QC—and they are using exactly the same method today. Labor does not change. They cannot change their spots—and they need to be kept in opposition.

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Adelaide will cease interjecting; she has been warned. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.