Bring it on: Heydon challenges ACTU to put up or shut up

It was 11 minutes of high-octane legal drama: a royal commissioner eyeballing his accusers.

It was 11 minutes of high-octane legal drama: a royal commissioner eyeballing his accusers and challenging them to bring it on.

The atmosphere yesterday at the trade union royal commission in Sydney was electric.

Commissioner Dyson Heydon directly confronted those who want to — or may want to — bring him down. After days of being branded by Labor and ACTU as “biased”, a “Liberal stooge” and even “a bagman”, he challenged his accusers to put up or shut up.

A former High Court judge, Mr Heydon rarely lets on what he is thinking. He has sat poker-faced since the commission began, watching scores of people answer hundreds of questions.

Yesterday he was the one under pressure — the all-powerful commissioner had gone from the man who must be obeyed to a man fighting for his reputation.

He clearly had decided attack was the best form of defence; when he walked into the room at 1.31pm he was in no mood to mess around. He had given the ACTU an hour to decide whether to move a ­motion that he stand down.

The origin of the crisis is Mr Heydon’s acceptance of an invitation to deliver the sixth annual Sir Garfield Barwick address.

The invitation stated clearly “we are formally a branch of the (Liberal) Party.” Mr Heydon ­accepted on April 11 last year, the month he began hearings. This, in itself, does not look good.

For some reason last Thursday, 16 months later, his alarm bells rang. His office sent an email to the organisers saying: “If there is any possibility that the event could be described as a Liberal Party event he will be unable to give the address, at least whilst he is in the position of Royal Commissioner.”

Correspondence released yesterday, under pressure from the ACTU, showed that on June 12, Mr Heydon had received an email checking about the Barwick lecture. The subject heading said: “Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) — Lawyers’ Branch and Legal Policy Branch.”

Yesterday at 1.37pm, the ACTU’s lawyer, Robert Newlinds SC, made clear the new climate of combat. After Mr Heydon made a comment, Mr Newlinds directly contradicted him: “No, it doesn’t.”

Mr Heydon was clearly taken aback; normally, barristers ­address royal commissioners with phrases such as “with respect” or “if your honour pleases.” In the hostility now engulfing the inquiry, Mr Newlinds had dispensed with this.

What angered Mr Heydon yesterday was that the ACTU returned from lunch without having clarified its position. Mr Newlinds said he had been unable to get instruction as to whether the ACTU would seek Mr Heydon’s disqualification. But Mr Heydon persisted — the person Mr Newlinds would get instruction from, ACTU chief Dave Oliver, was at the hearing.

Commissioner Heydon: “That seems to remove one obstacle to getting instructions.”

Mr Newlinds: “No it doesn’t.”

Mr Heydon glared: “You put that, of course, respectfully.”

Mr Newlinds: “I do.”

Clearly the ACTU strategy is to drag out the row as long as possible to damage Mr Heydon, so any adverse findings against Bill Shorten or unions can be dismissed.