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 statement in the Senate last Thursday that the Liberal Party function known as the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture is a public function, not a political function, and the Prime Minister's confirmation in the House on the same day that it is a Liberal Party fundraiser. Which is it?

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

Thank you very much for asking, Senator Conroy. I can tell you all about the Sir Garfield Barwick address, having given the Sir Garfield Barwick address myself. The Sir Garfield Barwick address is not what I would regard as an event of a political character. The fact that the host of the Sir Garfield Barwick address is the New South Wales legal professionals branch of the Liberal Party does not make it a political function. What one should have regard to, if I may say so—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order on my left!

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

and if I may speak without being bellowed at by Senator Carr over there—is what takes place at the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture. At the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture, a barrister or retired judge gives a speech on a legal or constitutional topic. None of the Sir Garfield Barwick lectures have been of a political character—none of them. If you want to consider the sort of people who give the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Conroy, you have asked your question.

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

the most recent one was the Hon. Murray Gleeson, the former Chief Justice of Australia. The audience of the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture is not the members of the Liberal Party but the members of the New South Wales bar. So I do not doubt for a moment that there is a Liberal Party connection to the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture—of course there is, because it is being promoted by an entity within the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party—but the audience to which it is promoted is not Liberal Party members but barristers.

Lastly, the lecture, or the event, is run at cost price. No profit is made from the lecture at all. No funds are raised, and I would not describe something as a fundraiser at which no funds are raised.

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. I refer to New South Wales Liberal Party director Tony Nutt's statement that the surplus from this event would have been 'a couple of hundred dollars' and that the suggestion that the event constitutes 'a significant fundraiser' is 'ridiculous'. Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Nutt that this event was a small fundraiser for the Liberal Party that would have raised a couple of hundred dollars?

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

No, I do not agree with that characterisation at all, as a matter of fact. I do not, because if you read Mr Nutt's statement, from which you have selectively quoted, you would see that Mr Nutt has made an inquiry of the venue provider and has established that the cost per ticket was $80 and the cost of providing the dinner was between $74 and $75 per seat. Therefore, Senator Conroy, you may think that to budget with a small surplus of $3, $4 or $5 constitutes a fundraiser; I do not. In fact, I would have thought that, if you were organising an event not designed to run at a profit but not designed to run at a loss either, you would build in a very small margin of a couple of dollars.

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. I refer to Commissioner Heydon's statement this morning which confirms he was aware the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture was a Liberal Party function. Given that Commissioner Heydon's position is clearly untenable due to the appearance of bias, will the Attorney-General now ask him to resign from this tainted commission?

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

I most certainly will not, and were I to do so I would be committing the crime of contempt under the Royal Commissions Act—and anyone who improperly sought to influence a royal commissioner would be committing the crime of contempt under the Royal Commissions Act.

You may be ignorant of this fact, Senator Conroy, but this morning the royal commissioner received a letter from Mr Peter Gordon, of Gordon Legal, acting on behalf of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Mr Gordon said in that letter, 'Our current intention is to seek to make our application'—that is, an application that the commissioner stand aside on the ground of apprehended bias—'before the commission at 2 pm today.' Shortly before question time, the commissioner asked Mr Newlinds, who seeks leave to appear on behalf of the ACTU, to confirm whether he had instructions and stood the matter down till 4 pm. It would in those circumstances be extremely inappropriate to comment. (Time expired)