Dyson Heydon delays decision on unions royal commission

Dyson Heydon has postponed his decision on whether he will step down as head of the trade union royal commission.

Dyson Heydon has delayed his decision on whether he will step down as head of the trade union royal commission. Picture: Adam Taylor

Dyson Heydon has postponed his decision on whether he will step down as head of the trade union royal commission, giving no date for his ruling and leaving potential law reform flowing from the ­inquiry hanging in the balance.

Mr Heydon had indicated last week that he “hoped” to make an announcement today, but the commission said yesterday he “is still considering” an application from seven unions that he disqualify himself on the grounds of ­“apprehended bias”.

The business lobby, responding to Mr Heydon’s “options for law reform” discussion paper, ­yesterday called for a crackdown on the use of union funds for political donations.

Mr Heydon’s paper, published in May, posited the idea of restricting the use of union funds for political donations.

“Should there be restrictions on the use of an organisation’s funds for the purpose of making political donations or incurring political expenditure?’’ he asked. “If so, what form should those ­restrictions take?”

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s paper, released yesterday, recommended “restrictions on the use of funds for political objects be adopted”.

“Questions arise around whether use of members’ funds for elections and political donations are being spent for the purposes of advancing the interests of members, particularly where such purposes are not apparent from within the organisation’s constitution,” it says.

The ACCI also recommended amending the law around so-called secondary boycotts to ­encourage companies to alert the competition regulator where they have been targeted by unions, which Mr Heydon canvassed in his paper.

Mr Heydon also canvassed ­options for tightening penalties for union leaders who break the law, aligning them with laws for company directors, and on financial benefits paid to unions by ­employee benefit funds specified in enterprise agreements.

The Housing Industry Association recommended tighter penalties should apply to unions that break the law. “The traditional claim that ­unions are small volunteer organisations with limited ­objectives and should not be subject to corporate standards of ­accountability, no longer holds true,’’ it said.

“Unions are not ‘not for profit’ in the commonly understood sense but run sophisticated commercial operations.”

Conservative think tank the Institute for Public Affairs made similar recommendations.

Mr Heydon’s paper also canvasses the option of introducing US-style rules against corrupt ­organisations to combat unlawful activities in the building and construction industry.

In its submission, the Ai Group said it “strongly supports the royal commission’’.

The commission yesterday said it had postponed its hearings into the NSW branch of the construction union which were scheduled for tomorrow as Mr Heydon deliberates his future.

The application by the ACTU representing five unions and separately from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Workers’ Union came after Mr Heydon accepted — and then later withdrew from — an invitation to speak to a Liberal Party fundraiser.