Dyson Heydon to ACTU: I’m above politics

Dyson Heydon has launched a strident defence of the trade union royal commission.

Dyson Heydon has launched a strident defence of the trade union royal commission, rejecting cate­gorically the unions’ claim that it was “politically charged” as he ­dismissed their application that he stand down.

While Labor and the trade union peak body, the ACTU, ­condemned the commission as “tainted” and “terminally tarnished” in the wake of yesterday’s decision, Mr Heydon rejected the claim brought before him by seven unions that his decision to speak at a Liberal party event created the perception he was biased. “It was not to be a political speech. It was to be a legal speech,” Mr Heydon said in his 67-page judgment.

Picking apart the unions’ suggestions Mr Heydon or his staff engaged in a cover-up, that he “knew” that he was attending a political fundraiser and “sup­ported the cause”, Mr Heydon also sought to redefine the debate over the commission, which Labor has branded a “political witch hunt”.

“The (commission’s) terms of reference are not themselves hostile to the union movement,” Mr Heydon wrote.

“They do not assume the desirability of restricting union power or altering the present system of handling industrial disputes.

“What they are concerned with is bad governance within certain institutions which are not trade unions, and criminality and breaches of legal or professional duty on behalf of unions or their officials.”

The ACTU, on behalf of five unions, petitioned Mr Heydon to disqualify himself on August 21, after it emerged Mr Heydon had agreed to give the Sir Garfield Barwick legal address arranged by the NSW branch of the Liberal Party, which was to be held last week.

The Australian Workers Union and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union also brought an application calling for Mr Heydon to stand down.

Referring to the legal test for bias, the ACTU’s lawyers had ­argued Mr Heydon’s decision to attend the inquiry created the perception of bias in a “fair-minded” observer because the commission was “red-hot” politically.

Rejecting their submission, Mr Heydon explained that his experience as “an academic lawyer, a barrister and a judge” meant his personal politics were “irrelevant”.

“Even if it were to be assumed, for the sake of argument, that in my private life I had some ‘affinity’ or ‘partiality’ for the Liberal Party, as the applicants appear to contend, the authorities make it plain that the fair-minded ­observer would have regard to my experience … Judges are expected to direct their entire professional career ­towards excluding the ­‘irrelevant, the immaterial and the prejudicial’.”

There was a “difference between predisposition and prejudgement”, Mr Heydon added.

ACTU national secretary Dave Oliver said the unions were considering whether to appeal.

“Deciding to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser demonstrates a serious lack of judgment and the way in which the commission has secretively handled this entire process has raised more questions than it has provided answers,” he said.

“It doesn’t pass the sniff test. Commissioner Heydon has sat in judgment on himself and found in his own favour.”

Mr Heydon conceded the commission was politically “sensitive”.

“The degree to which the royal commission has been the subject of public political comment has certainly increased during its lifetime,” he said.

And he noted the “political sensitivity” of evidence that the Labor Party and the AWU were compelled to produce relating to the union’s Industry 2020 slush fund before the commission heard allegation the fund was used to ­finance Labor political campaigns.

Mr Heydon ultimately found the ACTU’s submissions “exaggerate both the extent of the political context and its significance”.

“For one thing, the submissions overlook the fact that the members of many trade unions are not necessarily members of the Australian Labor Party.”

Dismissing claims of a cover-up, he described as “fanciful” the suggestion he would read the ­attachments to the invitation that outlined details of the dinner inclu­ding the cost and a reminder of rules for political donations.

“I was busily engaged in Commission work,” Mr Heydon said.

The commission, which will today resume hearings into the ACT branch of the CFMEU, has been overshadowed by the unions’ application which followed the revelation that Mr Heydon had agreed to attend give the Sir Garfield Barwick address.

Labor’s Mark Dreyfus refused to answer questions that the party leaked the news that Mr Heydon had accepted the invitation.

“I don’t think it’s of any rele­vance how this matter came to public attention,” Mr Dreyfus said. “What’s of importance is that the event happened.”

He added: “Labor wants all corruption in the union movement, all wrong doing in this union movement, investigated and to suggest that we have brought forward this point or taken up this point because of any desire that there not be full investigation would be completely wrong.”

Additional reporting: Jessica Rapana