Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.