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

I rise this evening to again draw the Senate's attention to the untenable position of Mr Abbott's trade union royal commission. I have addressed the Senate before in relation to this royal commission, this partisan royal commission that was established by Mr Abbott with the intention of spending $80 million of taxpayers' money on a star chamber charged with persecuting Mr Abbott's political opponents.

But tonight I rise to speak to what I consider to be the deeper matters this issue has brought to the public attention. These deeper matters do not relate to the short-term political interests of the opposition of a government. Rather, they relate to the long-term interests of the Australian people, interests that all political parties ultimately serve. Royal commissions have proved themselves to be vitally important institutions. Properly used, a royal commission can change the nation. The Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security conducted between 1974 and 1977 carried out a comprehensive inquiry into Australian security services. Commissioner Hope's report helped to change the way our security services operated and set in place the foundations of the modern and accountable national security system that still protects the nation today.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody conduct between 1987 and 1991 was another royal commission that changed our nation for the better. It brought to light the fundamental issues of structural inequality that lead to social dysfunction and profound tragedy. We are still today struggling to fully implement the findings of this particular royal commission. I also want to mention the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I do not mention because I want political kudos for Labor for setting that inquiry into motion; to the contrary, I mention it precisely because it was not set up to seek partisan political advantage. That inquiry was set up for the best interests of our nation; it was charged to investigate and report back on the evil of child sexual abuse in the institutional context. That royal commission has received bipartisan political support and the impassioned support of Australians across the political spectrum.

But the same cannot be said of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. From the outset, fair-minded Australians have seen this inquiry is politically motivated and is designed to smear and slander the Abbott government's political opponents. Mr Abbott has even admitted himself that the royal commission is focused upon the persecution of the Labor Party. Just over a week ago Mr Abbott said:

The work of the Royal Commission is absolutely vital, not just for our country as a whole, but it’s vital for the future of the union movement, it’s vital for the future of the Labor Party.

Mr Abbott's comments leave no doubt as to the politically motivated bias that underpins this royal commission.

A royal commission is not a court. Despite the desperate and ignorant claims of those opposite, royal commissions are explicitly extensions of the executive. By definition, the powers of the executive and a royal commission cannot be separated. And there is very good reason for this—royal commissions are bestowed with significant coercive investigative powers vested in them by the government via the Governor-General. However, they are not bound by some of the strict legal structures that maintain accountability within the court system. As an arm of the executive, a royal commissioner's accountability should be maintained by the government and, in turn, the parliament.

Despite the Abbott government wanting to gag any scrutiny of this partisan royal commission, despite the Attorney-General of Australia screaming at fellow members of this chamber as though they were committing a crime if they dared to criticise the royal commission or the royal commissioner, the parliament is absolutely the appropriate place to hold the commission to account. This is why we moved today a motion about the royal commission.

While a royal commission is not a court, it still maintains responsibility for upholding the principles of natural justice. There are two critical elements of natural justice. This first is the rule against bias—actual, imputed or apparent. Apparent bias is established when, in the eyes of a reasonable person, the conduct of a decision-maker gives rise to the suspicion that they are not impartial. Dyson Heydon's conduct in agreeing to speak at a Liberal Party event—a party fundraiser no less—most certainly establishes this. The fact that he then concocted a whole string of excuses, he mislead the Australian public about why he had withdrawn from the royal commission and then just to really wrap it up he came up with a new definition of a fundraiser. Apparently, it is not a fundraiser if everybody does not donate. Every single person must make a donation for it to be a fundraiser according to an allegedly pre-eminent legal mind.

Well I have some news for my daughter's school. I went to a fundraiser there the other day and not everyone in the room actually made a donation—it was very hard to make that happen. But let me be very clear about this, the school will be very shocked to hear that they were not running a fundraiser. They billed it as a fundraiser and donations were accepted. Every single person did not make a donation, but that did not stop it from being a fundraiser—a reasonable person, indeed.

The second element of natural justice is that of the right to a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing dictates that individuals receive prior notice to a case being heard against them, and the opportunity to both answer the case as well as present their own. In order for an individual to answer a case and present their own, that individual must be provided with the opportunity to make a submission to the adjudicator and mount a defence. Furthermore, the right to a fair hearing demands that the defendant, or their representative, be provided the opportunity to scrutinise the evidence being presented. The well-established process for this scrutiny relies upon cross-examination as the vehicle. Cross-examination ensures that the evidence relied upon to form conclusions about any such matter has been thoroughly scrutinised and stress-tested for weakness. However, Dyson Heydon and Mr Abbott's royal commission have wilfully ignored these principles of natural justice. From the very beginning, the prejudicial nature of this royal commission—