Contortion is what defines Shorten

Bill Shorten at a Parliament House event last month. Picture: AAP

Ah, the chutzpah of it all. This parliamentary citizenship “circus”, declared Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on Monday, “has to stop”. Speaking of circuses, Shorten only a fortnight before appeared on ABC’s Q&A, where a bemused audience witnessed a remarkable display of acrobatics. During what must have been an excruciating two and a half minutes for host Tony Jones, Shorten continually prevaricated when asked if he would produce documents confirming he had renounced his British citizenship.

“You reverse the onus of proof,” said Shorten in response to Jones’s question, “that somehow you’ve got to contort yourself — that’s not the way it works.” Sadly, both truth and syntax were contorted horrendously that night. It brought to mind Shorten’s lengthy appearance before the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption in July 2015, when commissioner Dyson Heydon, QC observed “Mr Shorten … a lot of your answers are non-responsive — some of your answers are responsive but then add something that isn’t responsive.”

Fortunately this time a royal commission was not necessary, with Shorten finally giving an unambiguous response to parliament on Monday. “I accept that, if I want to be elected prime minister, there cannot be any doubt about my constitutional eligibility pushed by the conspiracy theorists like the prime minister and the member for Warringah,” he said. Contorting himself, he tabled a one-page document proving his renunciation of British citizenship in 2006.

“I strongly believe that MPs and senators should not be forced to produce evidence to counter claims that are made completely without evidence,” he added tartly. Who but he, one ponders, has had to suffer such impertinence? The performance was reminiscent of the 1960s television show Lost in Space and the signature protest of Dr Zachary Smith. Oh the pain. The pain.

Seemingly forgotten in this fit of pique was a statement Shorten made in his Q&A appearance. “We haven’t actually demanded that any conservative … produce their documents,” he protested. “In America we’ve seen what happen when they have fake news,” Shorten added, attempting to draw an analogy between his situation and the Obama Kenyan ‘birther’ movement.

Fake news Shorten’s assertion certainly was. In January 2015, Labor MP and lawyer Terri Butler wrote to then PM Tony Abbott about this issue of dual citizenship. Despite acknowledging that she had “seen no evidence” that Abbott was ineligible to sit in parliament, Butler requested that he provide confirmation he had renounced his British citizenship. Shorten, who was Opposition Leader at the time, made no public attempt to distance himself or the party from Butler’s actions.

Goaded this week by Abbott and the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, over his stonewalling, Shorten was resentful and petulant. The spectacle of him having to be dragged kicking and screaming to table his confirmation was unedifying, but for him that was not the worst of it. Instead of simply acknowledging the public’s right to know that his holding office was legitimate, Shorten drew attention to his capitulation by complaining. To do so in politics is, to borrow an observation from the late former British cabinet minister Roy Jenkins, “something very near to a dangerous whine”.

Josh Bornstein, the face of law firm Maurice Blackburn, tried valiantly to portray Shorten’s actions as a win for Labor.

@billshortenmp "caved" just like Muhammad Ali caved when he put a stop to George Foreman - except Turnbull is no Foreman. https://t.co/k60SJ0JSCe

— Josh Bornstein (@JoshBBornstein) September 4, 2017

“Shorten ‘caved’ just like Muhammad Ali caved when he put a stop to George Foreman — except Turnbull is no Foreman,” he tweeted in defence of the firm’s former lawyer. In the famous ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ fight of 1974 Ali was literally on the ropes for a good part of the contest, but he never moaned to the spectators about the injustice of parrying Foreman’s blows. Shorten’s display was more a ‘Fumble in the Jungle’. Tumble, perhaps? Stumble? Mumble? Bumble? Humble? Crumble?

What was Shorten hoping to achieve by his longstanding obfuscation? Possibly he may have hoped to force the government into overreaching, in which case he miscalculated badly by annoying the public with the unnecessary distraction. Alternatively, Shorten’s intransigence may have been intended to shield his own party from a section 44 constitutional sword. Instead, he has heightened awareness about the potential non-compliance among Labor MPs and senators. Through his backdown he has also unwittingly established a precedent that his party will find difficult to avoid following.

“We have a strict vetting process,” said Shorten a fortnight ago, rejecting calls for Labor representatives to confirm their citizenship status. “There is no cloud over any of our people.” Only a week later The Daily Telegraphrevealed a cloud the size of Ecuador over Labor senator Katy Gallagher. Far from being “strict”, the vetting process had not involved seeking legal advice about the citizenship ramifications of Gallagher’s mother being born in Ecuador, nor did it include getting confirmation from the authorities of that country.

There is one thing that has been confirmed by these events, however, and that is Shorten’s shortfall in the honesty and trustworthiness stakes. Like Turnbull, he entered parliament by displacing a sitting member of his own party. As a faction leader in 2010 he ensured the removal of Kevin Rudd as PM and, in 2013, Julia Gillard.

Granted, a political leader will not last if he or she does not possess ruthlessness, but Shorten’s record is tainted by opportunism. Few examples better demonstrate this than his inconsistent stances on the same-sex marriage debate. Vigorously opposing the government’s plan in 2016 for a plebiscite on the issue, he warned this would give the “green light” to homophobia and hate. The Australiansubsequently revealed video footage of a remarkably sanguine Shorten in 2013 telling Christian leaders he was “completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite” on same-sex marriage.

In April 2016, Shorten told Melbourne’s 3AW audience that Labor would accept the Fair Work Commission’s impending decision concerning a review of penalty rates for hospitality and retail workers. Yet when the FWC decided in February 2017 to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, Shorten reneged, blaming the Turnbull government. “We will do everything in our power in the parliament and the courts to remedy this bad decision,” he stated. Who was the minister for workplace relations who had overseen the changing of the Fair Work Act to ensure the FWC regularly reviewed penalty rates? Bill Shorten.

As for bad decisions that remove workers’ penalty rates, Shorten showed no hesitation about endorsing them in his time at the Australian Workers Union. As AWU Victoria state secretary in 1998, he signed off on an enterprise bargaining agreement with cleaning company Cleanevent that ended workers’ evening and weekend penalty rates. The subsequent reduction in wages left the 5000 or so employees with a shortfall of around $400 million.

Not only did it give Cleanevent a huge advantage over its business rivals, but it also greatly benefited Shorten’s standing with the ALP in that employees automatically joined the AWU upon employment unless they opted out. Consequently up to 90 per cent of employees became AWU members. In 2004 Shorten, by this time national secretary, extended what for workers was a dud agreement. He did the same in 2006.

Even in his personal life, Shorten leaves himself open to accusations of hypocrisy. When a mere up-and-comer in the union movement he cultivated, and mixed easily with, fabulously rich businessmen. In 2017 he derided Turnbull for his wealth, adopting the “Mr Harbourside Mansion” sneer. Yet Shorten relished the material perks of friendship with billionaires such as the late Richard Pratt, on whose private jet he would fly. His then wife, Deborah Beale, had known Pratt since childhood, and Shorten capitalised on the connection.

Shorten comes in many shades, but one attribute remains consistent, and that is his use of others to advance his ambitions, with scant regard for either people or principle. Next time you hear Shorten complain about contorting himself, bear in mind it comes from one who oscillates with the agility of the acrobat. Contortion is what defines Shorten.