THE HON MARK DREYFUS QC MP
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ACTING SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
MEMBER FOR ISAACS
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
PRESS CONFERENCE
SYDNEY
MONDAY, 31 AUGUST 2015
SUBJECTS: Tony Abbott's royal commission
MARK DREYFUS, SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Fair-minded Australians wouldsee in what has occurred theapprehension of bias thatshould have been the reason whyDyson Heydon disqualifiedhimself from continuing in thisrole. Tony Abbott should haverelieved Dyson Heydon of theneed even to make thisdecision. The fact he has notdone so, the fact that at leastfor the moment the commissionis continuing means that wehave a continuing royalcommission tainted anddiscredited by what hasoccurred. Discredited by thescandal that has occurred. I don't think any fair-mindedAustralian looking at thisinvitation to the speech thatDyson Heydon was to give, complete with the LiberalParty's logo in the topright-hand corner andinstructions on the reversethat told people consideringgoing to hear this speech thatcheques were to be made payableto the Liberal Party of Australia, and more, that allproceeds from this event wouldbe applied to State electioncampaigning.
This is a LiberalParty event, Dyson Heydon hasassociated himself with aLiberal Party event. There'sthe apprehension of bias thatany fair-mind observer wouldbring and all Australians as aresult have lost confidence inthis royal commission. We saythat what should occur is thatthe Government should acceptthe suggestion that Labor maderight at the start of 2014,which is that a joint policetask force should be established, a joint policetask force of the AustralianCrime Commission, the Statepolice forces, Federal Policeand for far less than the $80million that's been put intothis royal commission, the tensof millions of dollars expendedto date, we would have alreadyseen the allegations that havebeen made, investigated, quitepossibly prosecutions alreadycommenced. The only result ofthis royal commission has beento delay the proper progress ofthose investigations.
Anyquestions?
JOURNALIST: Did you expect theunions to pursue from a legalaction?
DREYFUS: I'm not going to givelegal advice to the unions.The union representatives havesaid that they are going to beconsidering the detailedreasons that Dyson Heydon hasgiven over, and we'll learntomorrow whether or not theunions who made the applicationfor Dyson Heydon to disqualifyhimself are going to, as istheir right, take this matterfor determination by a court.Because, of course, it needs tobe stressed that the royal commission is not a court.Dyson Heydon is a retired judgeof the High Court of Australia.He's not sitting as a court andthe course for anyone whodisagrees with hisdetermination today is to takethe matter to a court.
JOURNALIST: Shouldthe commission's hearingscontinue tomorrow morning ifthe unions are possiblyconsidering further legalaction?
DREYFUS: That's a matter forthe commission, and as indeedit's a matter for the tradeunions as to whether or notthey decide they're going totake this matter forward to acourt.
JOURNALIST: How many senior lawyersdo you know who are incapableof using an email, and is thisappropriate?
DREYFUS: I don't knowthat his full justification isthat he doesn't use email, butagain I would say that what wehave here is an apprehension ofbias. Giving a characterreference for Dyson Heydondoesn't take the argument anywhere, and perhaps evencommenting on whether or notJustice Heydon uses emaildoesn't take the matter anywhere. What the conclusiveabout this, where theapprehension of bias comes fromis this invitation clearly marking this as a Liberal Partyevent. No-one could be in anydoubt about the politicalnature of this royal commission. It's a commissionthat from the start wasintended to smear the politicalopponents of the Liberal Party,which is not just trade unions,but the Australian Labor Party.And it's an improper use of theroyal commissions power that'sgiven rise to the problem here,not whether or not Dyson Heydoncan read emails.
JOURNALIST: What do yousay of Dyson Heydon's claimsthat just because someoneagreed to give a speech at acertain function doesn'tmean... [Inaudible] ?
DREYFUS: I'd sayit's not about his state ofmind, it's about what thefair-minded observer looking atthis, having regard to thenature of the royalcommission's activities, havingregard to the royalcommission's own terms ofreference, having regard to theway in which the royalcommission has been conductedsince the start. People wouldremember that the very firstwitness and the very firstmatter dealt with by this royal commission was a 20-year-oldset of allegations into theconduct of the Honourable JuliaGillard, former Prime Ministerof Australia not when she wasPrime Minister, but when shehad worked as a solicitor in1992 and 1993. It's hard tosee any current benefit thatcould be gained for the peopleof Australia from such an inquiry and of course, theinterim report makes it clearthat there was nothing therethat Julia Gillard had toanswer for. But it was part ofthe smear that this royalcommission has been from theoutset, part of as I say, theabuse of the Government's powerto set up a royal commission.That's the problem.
JOURNALIST: Did youorganise to leak the invitationto the press?
DREYFUS: It's not aboutleaking. This was a publicevent. It's an advertisedpublic speech by Dyson Heydonto an event to speak at anevent, which it became clear although this was not initiallypublicly advertised, was conducted by the Liberal Partyof NSW.
JOURNALIST: Did you pass that facton?
DREYFUS: It's not a matter of whopassed it on, because it'sabout the apprehension of bias.It's about what a fair-mindedperson looking at the fact ofDyson Heydon, the RoyalCommissioner in an intenselypolitical royal commission,whether or not it's the rightthing for him to have done andhow the matter came to public attention because it wasalready in public if I can makethat clear, is entirelyirrelevant to the question thatDyson Heydon had to decide andentirely irrelevant to if acourt is going to be asked todecide it, irrelevant to thatquestion, too.
JOURNALIST: Are you worriedyour reaction would be perceived as Labor trying to stop the Commission from trying to unveil any more corruption?
DREYFUS: Labor's made it clear from theoutset of the announcement ofthis royal commission thatLabor wants to see all corruption, all illegalactivity stamped out of theunion movement, as indeed wewant to see corruption and illegal activity stamped outacross the Australiancommunity. There should be nodoubt whatsoever about that andI'd say that our suggestion tothe government, which was thata joint task force should beset up consisting of theAustralian Crime Commission andState and Federal policeforces, that was the way to go.I'd again make the point thatit wasn't anything to do withthis royal commission that twosenior officials of the HealthServices Union have beenprosecuted, taken to court andconvicted and one of them nowremains in jail. That's gotnothing to do with this royalcommission. That occurredwhile Labor was in government.It's got nothing to do withthis royal commission thatKathy Jackson has been orderedby the Federal Court ofAustralia to repay $1.5 millionto the union from which shemisappropriated those funds.And all of those proceedings involving the Health ServicesUnion make the point that youdon't need a royal commissionto investigate, you don't needa royal commission to bringprosecutions. The AustralianCrime Commission has gotcoercive powers, police forceshave got investigative powersand we would have got, I think,far more bang for buck out of setting up a joint task force,a suggestion that theGovernment ignored because whatthis Government wants to do ismisuse its royal commission'spower to create a smear of itspolitical opponents. If wecould have one at a time.
JOURNALIST: Willyou continue to push for Heydonto be removed from his post,and how will you do this?
DREYFUS: We're certainly going to betaking forward in the Senatenext Monday, which is when theSenate next sits, a petition tothe Governor-General to removeDyson Heydon from this office.Tony Abbott has failed to actto remove Dyson Heydon fromTony Abbott's own royalcommission. It's now left forthe Parliament to act.
JOURNALIST: But isthis possibly a bad move forLabor, pursuing a High Courtjudge?
DREYFUS: I'd repeat, DysonHeydon is not a High Courtjudge, he is a retired HighCourt judge and that's not asmall distinction, it's a veryimportant one. In his interimreport, Dyson Heydon himselfmakes clear that the royal commission is not a court oflaw. He is not sitting as ajudge, he did not pretend to besitting as a judge andreferring to his undoubtedeminence, giving characterreferences for Dyson Heydon isentirely beside the point. Thepoint is the Liberal Partyevent to which Dyson Heydonaccepted an invitation, atwhich Dyson Heydon accepted aninvitation to speak. It's notabout him being a judge andit's certainly not aboutanything to do with that kindof wash over you might call it,of him having been a formerjudge.
JOURNALIST: Labor clearly wantsthis commission shut down, dothey have something to hide?
DREYFUS: Absolutely not, and we've madethat clear from the start.Labor wants all corruption inthe union movement, allwrong-doing in the unionmovement investigated and tosuggest that we have broughtforward this point, or havetaken up this point because ofany desire that there not befull investigation would becompletely wrong. What we needto see is a royal commissiontainted as this one nowirredeemably is, and TonyAbbott should never havestarted this royal commissionin the first place. That's theproblem, it's an abuse of theroyal commissions power.Malcolm Fraser himself earlylast year made this point,saying that it was entirely improper for the CommonwealthGovernment to be using itsroyal commissions power topursue political opponents. Hewas, of course, referring tonot one but two royalcommissions that thisGovernment has commenced inorder to pursue its politicalopponents.
JOURNALIST: Do you think theroyal commission has doneanything of value?
DREYFUS: I thinkthe royal commission haspublicised some allegationsthat could have beeninvestigated by other means. Ithink the whole process bywhich this royal commission hasbeen commenced, the way theterms of reference have beenframed in fact make it verydifficult to obtain anything ofreal value. But of coursethere may be things of value,of course even from the interimreport you can seeforeshadowing by the royalcommission a possiblelegislative change. That's, ofcourse, what royal commissionsshould be directed at. But Ithink, in fact, it's likelythat the royal commission hasimpeded rather than aided thespeedy prosecution, if prosecutions are warranted, ofpeople against whom allegationshave been made.
JOURNALIST: Dyson Heydonis staying on, could that notmaybe benefit Labor's cause...could be seen as tainted orless credible?
DREYFUS: I think thisroyal commission isirredeemably tainted by theevents which have occurred andthat's a matter of regret.That's a matter which TonyAbbott has caused by setting upthe royal commission in thefirst place. But in the eventswhich have occurred, thecommission will remain,whatever happens and whateverthe unions decide to do and ifa court is to rule on it,whatever those courts decide todo, I think Australians nowhave fully and completely lostconfidence in this royalcommission.
JOURNALIST: If it is up to theGovernor-General to decideDyson Heydon's fate, what wouldbe your reasoning?
DREYFUS: I thinkthat Dyson Heydon's positionbecame untenable with hisacceptance of an invitation tospeak at a Liberal Party event- I put to one side entirelythis distinction that's beingmade about whether or not it was a fundraiser. That's notto the point. This was aLiberal Party event. Hisposition became untenable and I'd again call on Tony Abbottto terminate his commission.
JOURNALIST: You said there's value to comefrom this commission, however,you've previously stated withDyson Heydon as commissioner itserves no value to Australians. Do you still stand by thosecomments?
DREYFUS: These events, thesebordering on farcical events,the delay that's occurred inthe getting of this decision, the dribs and drabs in whichthe details of Dyson Heydon'sacceptance of the invitation,the way in which that wastrickled out, all of that Ithink has irredeemably taintedthis royal commission. Nothingfurther?
JOURNALIST: With respect, youhaven't answered my question ofwhether you or someone youassociated with leaked this invitation to the press?
DREYFUS: Idon't think it's of anyrelevance how this matter cameto public attention. What's ofimportance is that the eventhappened. I don't think anyoneis seriously suggesting thatthis was a secret event. If itwere, that would be even worse.This was, in fact, an eventadvertised by the NSW BarAssociation inviting peopleto attend. What wasn't readilyapparent, but became apparent, was that it was an eventorganised by the Liberal Party.One possibility of which wasthat it was going to raisefunds for the Liberal Partythat would be used for Statecampaigning, and it's not to thepoint how in particularjournalists have got hold ofthis invitation, nor how it'scome to public attention. Thefact is it has come to publicattention and the apprehensionof bias, and I'd stress againthat's the question here, it'swhat would a fair-mindedobserver make of these events?That question is determined bylooking at what has occurred,not the particular method bywhich or the route by whichthis has come directly topublic attention. Thanks verymuch.
ENDS
