Bill Shorten union royal commission: side deals, ‘bogus’ invoices
Bill Shorten has been forced to defend payments of several hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the AWU and two firms.
Bill Shorten has been forced to defend payments of several hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the Australian Workers Union by construction firm Thiess John Holland and glassmaker ACI, after he negotiated enterprise agreements for workers as head of the union, in another bruising session at the trade union royal commission.
Amid a series of elaborate answers to questions over services the AWU claims it provided to employers, ranging from research on back strain to Mr Shorten’s interest area “paid education leave”, Commissioner Dyson Heydon QC chastised the federal Opposition Leader for “non-responsive” answers.
Commissioner Heydon told Mr Shorten he had “concerns” about “your credibility as a witness”, and cautioned him to keep his answers precise.
Counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Stoljar grilled Mr Shorten about payments amounting to $100,000 a year plus GST to Thiess John Holland after the AWU signed a 2005 EBA with the company.
Mr Stoljar suggested a “bogus” invoice was issued to Thiess John Holland for research on back strain that was never conducted.
He asked Mr Shorten: “Is this a bogus invoice that’s claiming payment for work that was never done?”
Mr Shorten responded: “I would never be party to issuing any bogus invoices full stop.”
Mr Stoljar alleged the payments amounted to a “side-deal” with the company, deliberately omitted from the EBA, which Mr Shorten denied.
Of the payments to ACI, Mr Stoljar said: “Invoices are being sent and being paid when there’s no contractual obligation on the part of ACI to pay these invoices.”
Mr Shorten also rejected Mr Stoljar’s assertion there was a conflict of interest to negotiate deals for ongoing payments to unions for services alongside discussions around EBAs.