Tony Abbott digs in behind Dyson Heydon

The political firestorm engulfing the royal commission into union corruption has escalated.

The political firestorm engulfing the royal commission into union corruption has escalated after its head, former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, revealed he agreed to address a Liberal Party event after being told of its links to the party.

Amid calls from Labor and ­unions for Mr Heydon to be sacked over claims of bias that could wreck the investigation, the affair appears likely to dog the government until at least Friday, when the royal commissioner may have to determine whether he needs to stand down.

Tony Abbott is backing Mr Heydon for his “professionalism and impartiality” despite escalating criticism of the commissioner’s decision to speak at the Liberal Party event after he had been named to lead the independent inquiry.

The attacks on the royal commission threaten to damage the Prime Minister and the government at a time of backbench anxiety over the Coalition’s slump in the polls and internal divisions over whether to hold a plebiscite or a referendum on gay marriage.

Mr Abbott declared that Labor’s attacks were an attempt to “cover up” union deals that hurt workers, as he argued in parliament that it was false to accuse the commissioner of agreeing to speak at a Liberal fundraiser.

Compounding the political pain for the government, the ACTU moved yesterday to force the commissioner aside, gaining a deadline of 2pm on Thursday to lodge a formal submission so a hearing could start at 10am on Friday to decide the matter. If the union body or another party makes a submission, Mr Heydon will decide his own fate at the hearing into his perception of bias, with federal government advisers yesterday saying any decision was up to him and not the government.

At stake is the credibility of the commission when it releases its final report, including potential reflections on Bill Shorten over his time as leader of the Australian Workers Union — an aspect of the investigation with political ramifications for the next election.

Burnside slams PM

Barrister Julian Burnside this morning accused Mr Abbott of misrepresenting him in parliament, accusing the government of grasping “at any straws they can” to defend Mr Heydon.

Mr Burnside, a Queen’s Counsel and prominent human rights lawyer, has been repeatedly cited by Mr Abbott in his efforts to safeguard the royal commissioner against allegations of Liberal bias.

The lawyer today acknowledged he had described Mr Heydon as an “honourable” man, but stressed he had also called on Mr Heydon to “step aside” to avoid the perception of bias.

“They will grasp at any straws they can. I don’t think they would see me as a natural source of support,” Mr Burnside told ABC Radio. “The fact is that I do have a high regard for Dyson Heydon. In fact, as I’ve said, I think he is an honourable person, and I think in the circumstances an honourable person would normally step aside.

“The more his connections with the Liberal Party become apparent, the more difficult it is to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I still think he is an honourable person.”

Mr Abbott yesterday told parliament: “This government defends the professionalism and the impartiality of the honourable Dyson Heydon, a former judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, a former judge for almost a decade of the Australian High Court who has been said by no less a critic of this government then Julian Burnside to be ‘a profoundly honourable man’.”

Mr Abbott on Friday told reporters in South Australia: “Someone who knows him very well and is no great friend of this Government, Julian Burnside QC, said this morning that he was a man of honour and he is a man of honour, he’s doing a good and necessary job with this royal commission.”

Mr Burnside said it was possible for Mr Heydon to step down and the inquiry to be reconstituted under a new commissioner, as occurred when he was counsel assisting in the Australian Broadcasting Authority’s “cash for comment” inquiry in 1999.

In that case, inquisitor David Flint stood down following an ill-judged decision to be interviewed by the ethics inquiry’s principal target, John Laws.

Mr Abbott, asked in parliament yesterday about Mr Burnside’s call for Mr Heydon to step aside, said: “The appropriate place for the issues that the member opposite raises to be discussed and dealt with is before the royal commissioner.”

The royal commission’s inquiry into the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union resumes today.

The Abbott government named Mr Heydon as royal commissioner in February last year. Labor portrayed the investigation as an ideological attack on the union movement. Two months later, Mr Heydon agreed to give the Garfield Barwick Address when he had been told the event was linked to the Liberal Party.

Labor employment spokesman Brendan O’Connor cited Mr Heydon’s comments yesterday as confirmation he had agreed to speak at a “Liberal Party fundraiser” and recommitted to it in March this year. “Doesn’t it make it clear that this royal commission has been politicised from the start and Mr Heydon’s commission should be withdrawn?” Mr O’Connor asked in parliament.

The commission has uncovered allegations of blackmail, price-fixing and standover tactics, raising government hopes it could clean up the construction industry and other parts of the economy. It also triggered the arrest of three officials in Canberra last month following testimony to the inquiry. Mr Abbott said Labor was trying to protect union officials who were “looking after themselves” at the expense of workers.

“Members opposite should be very careful about smearing a distinguished former judge in an ­attempt to cover up their betrayals of the workers,” Mr Abbott told parliament. “What is abundantly clear from what has been revealed at this royal commission on ­numerous occasions is that union officials ripped off the workers in order to help themselves.”

While Labor called on Mr ­Abbott to dump the commissioner, the ACTU is yet to decide whether to move a formal application to force him to step aside — with some believing it would be better to leave him in place and use the furore to discredit his findings.

The government disputed Labor’s claim the event was a “Liberal Party fundraiser” — given the party’s estimate that last year’s dinner raised $238.64 — but Mr Abbott accepted it was a “Liberal Party event”. While Mr Heydon cancelled his appearance at the event last Thursday, he came under growing attack yesterday for accepting the invitation in the first place and for confirming it when emails sent to him in June this year showed it was a Liberal Party event and included a flyer that said the money raised would go to election campaigning.

Sydney barrister Gregory Burton invited Mr Heydon in April last year to speak at the Garfield Barwick Address in August this year and made the political links clear. “Although we are formally a branch of the party, our aim is to be a liberal-minded ‘bridge’ to the profession rather than overtly party-political (although we trust we show the party in a favourable light!),” Mr Burton said in an email to Mr Heydon.

On June 12 this year, Mr Burton emailed Mr Heydon again to tell him invitations had been sent out, enclosing the flyer for the event. The subject line of the email read: “Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) Lawyer’s Branch and Legal Policy Branch.”

Mr Heydon said yesterday he “overlooked” the flyer attached to the email. It showed the Liberal Party logo and included a disclosure saying cheques should be made out to the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) and that proceeds would be applied to “state election campaigning”.

In the royal commission hearing room yesterday, barrister Robert Newlinds SC, acting for the ACTU, twice refused to make an immediate application to Mr Heydon to recuse himself. Counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar, accused the peak union body of “grandstanding”.

ACTU national secretary Dave Oliver said outside the hearing the union body had “real concern that (Mr Heydon) appears to be biased” but added the unions wanted more time to consider their position.

Additional reporting: Jared Owens