PRIME MINISTER:
If I could just begin by saying that obviously this has been a bad 24 hours for the people of Victoria in bushfire affected areas. I just would like the people of Victoria to know that as far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned the National Disaster Recovery Arrangements have been activated and we stand ready to work with the government of Victoria to do all we reasonably can to ensure that people get the help they need in these difficult, difficult hours and days.
Now, as all of you would remember, the Coalition pre-election promised a judicial inquiry into union slush funds. Since the election, there have been widespread and credible claims by senior people in the union movement and whistleblowers within the union movement of unlawful activity, corruption, organised crime involvement, standover tactics, kickbacks, etcetera – very widespread in elements of the union movement.
As a result, the Government will be recommending to Her Excellency the appointment of a Royal Commission into union governance and corruption to be headed by former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon.
This is a government which is absolutely committed to the rule of law, whether it is in border protection or in our workplaces. We are absolutely committed to the rule of law. This Royal Commission is designed to shine a great big spotlight into the dark corners of our community to ensure that honest workers and honest businesses get a fair go. Honest workers and honest unionists should not be ripped off by corrupt officials and honest businesses should be able to go about their work without fear of intimidation, corruption and standover tactics. That is the absolute objective of this Government – to ensure that the ordinary law of the land is observed and, if necessary, enforced and our intention is to ensure that decent, honest, ordinary Australians can get on with their lives. Eric?
EMPLOYMENT MINISTER:
The workers and trade union members of this country are entitled to know that the money they pay over and the officials that they employ are using those monies and their time in pursuit of the objects of the organisation and are not running scams on the side, organisations on the side, for their own purposes. Similarly, shareholders of companies are entitled to know that the money that should be theirs as a shareholder through dividends is not being diverted to pay certain union officials for favours so this Royal Commission will shine the spotlight, I suggest, not only on registered organisations in relation to employee associations, but also on to employers. This is a sword that will cut both ways and we are determined to ensure that the rule of law exists in our construction sector. As to the details of the Royal Commission, I'll hand over to the Attorney.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Thank you, Prime Minister. Thank you, Eric. Mr Shorten – who first seemed to take an interest in this issue yesterday when it was apparent the Government was going to make an announcement imminently – has claimed that a Royal Commission is not the best or the most appropriate vehicle to tackle this problem. On the contrary, a Royal Commission is precisely the right mechanism to deal with a problem which is widespread, systemic and ingrained across a range of institutions. Other Royal Commissions have been established for that reason. This is not a question of sporadic cases. This is a matter of a widespread culture which requires the powers and the thoroughness of a Royal Commission to get to the bottom of.
Mr Shorten has also said that a police taskforce would be a better mechanism. Royal Commissions work with the police. Royal Commissions routinely have police or police taskforces seconded to them so they can work hand in glove with the police. This mechanism is the most thoroughgoing and pervasive mechanism to get to the heart of this problem, to throw a spotlight on it and it passes strange that Mr Shorten is seeking to avoid the most pervasive and thorough inquiry into what he acknowledges to be a serious problem.
QUESTION:
When do you envisage or when do you want the Royal Commission to hand in its findings and just on a matter of detail in the terms of reference, why is the TWU and ETU mentioned specifically?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, because there have been allegations involving these unions. In respect to the TWU, for instance, there were allegations that a TWU slush fund was used in a Health Services Union election. We want the Commission to begin its work as quickly as possible. We're going to be recommending a reporting date at the end of this year, but obviously once the Commission's work begins it will be up to the Royal Commissioner.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, you said that you want them to abide by the rule of law. There are a number of ongoing court cases, including the HSU; a number of police investigations under way. How do you avoid subjudice or jeopardising those ongoing investigations and court cases?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the last thing I would want to do is to prevent the investigations which have been, let's face it, going on for a very long time now – some might suggest dragging on for a very long time now – to be further delayed or complicated by this. The last thing I would want to do is to stand in the way of prosecutions. One of the problems that we've got here is that the police traditionally have tended to stand back from industrial matters. We know that in many industrial disputes, the police have seen their job as more to keep the peace than to enforce the law and certainly this will be one of the areas that we will be asking the Royal Commission to look into. The other point I should make, and I'll ask the Attorney to comment further on this, the other point I should make is that there is no reason why a Royal Commission cannot run concurrently with police investigations and indeed prosecutions – no reason at all why that can't be the case.
Finally, before giving it to the Attorney, let me just say that there was a piece by, I think, the Victorian Assistant Commissioner of Police, Stephen Fontana on The Drum, I believe it was today, saying that police will do their job, but there is a cultural problem here, a very serious cultural problem here, which really does mean a much wider investigation of the kind that can only be provided by a Royal Commission. George?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Thanks, Prime Minister. Where a problem is widespread and systematic, you would expect that at any given time there would be individual cases under investigation or subject to prosecution. This is not an unusual problem facing Royal Commissions and Royal Commissions in the past have developed well-recognised mechanisms to identify issues and in some cases isolate individual instances so that the conduct of the inquiry does not prejudice ongoing police investigations or court proceedings. On that argument, the more pervasive the unlawfulness, the less inclined one would be to have a Royal Commission and of course that's a nonsense. This Royal Commission, in the hands of a very, very skilled judicial officer, is perfectly capable of making the appropriate arrangements to ensure that current investigations and court proceedings are not compromised.
QUESTION:
Just to clarify your previous answer, you said the police have tended to stand back and you want this Royal Commission to look into that too. Are you suggesting inappropriate behaviour on the part of the police? Can you clarify what you mean by that? What sort of scope will this Royal Commission have to look into the relationship between police investigations and unions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Royal Commissions, as the Attorney has just suggested, are very appropriate where there is a systemic culture of misconduct – when there is a culture of cover-up, if you like – and it’s pretty clear from amongst other things, Assistant Commissioner Fontana’s article on The Drum today, that the police know that things could and should be done better in this area. So, that’s why I think it’s important that we have this Royal Commission, because this Royal Commission and its work is absolutely essential to ensuring that we have genuine law observance and law enforcement in this area. Michelle?
QUESTION:
Senator Abetz, you’ve made the point on a number of occasions and again today that this Royal Commission cuts both ways; that it looks at some employers as well as unions. Do you think, though, that these terms of reference are wide enough to ensure that that is properly done?
EMPLOYMENT MINISTER:
Yes, I’ve had a very close look at the terms of reference with my colleague, the Attorney-General and I have no doubt that the terms of reference do cover exactly what you are talking about and I would draw your attention to paragraph eight, “the participation of any persons, associations or organisations other than registered employees” described in those paragraphs. So, it clearly contemplates other peoples’ involvement and that is what the Prime Minister indicated: we want a very bright light to shine.
QUESTION:
Could you explain what powers the Royal Commission will have with regard to any employer that might be the other part of one of these transactions?
PRIME MINISTER:
The usual powers of a Royal Commission to summon people under pain of penalty – this is what Royal Commissions can do.
QUESTION:
So you’re saying that the powers it has over the unions?
PRIME MINISTER:
The powers of this Royal Commission are identical, in respect of all persons who are covered by the terms of reference. Andrew?
QUESTION:
You mentioned that you would envisage police working concurrently with the Royal Commission, but the Attorney-General suggests they might also be working with them. Would you envisage there being a police squad attached to the Royal Commission? And, secondly, do you see or think that there might be cause to drag politicians, former and present, before the Commission?
PRIME MINISTER:
Andrew, as is well known, once you set up a Royal Commission, things are in the hands of the Royal Commissioner. Now, the Royal Commissioner that we are proposing for this task, should Her Excellency accept our recommendation, is a lawyer of the very highest understanding, a person of the very deepest intellect, and I’m confident that Commissioner Dyson Heydon will do what he thinks is reasonably necessary to investigate the matters covered by his terms of reference and whether that requires some police involvement, that will be a matter for the Royal Commissioner. Laura?
QUESTION:
What do you know of a suspected major announcement to be made by Toyota this afternoon and do you have any word that they might be announcing similar to what Ford and Holden have?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I don’t have any knowledge of any major announcement at this time.
QUESTION:
In relation to the Building and Construction Commission, does the announcement of the Royal Commission change your attitude towards that and the introduction of legislation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely not. What we are recommending to Her Excellency the Governor-General is in addition to all of the other measures that we have before the Parliament or are contained in our policy. So, the Registered Organisations Commission will be part of legislation that will go before the Parliament. The Australian Building and Construction Commission is already before the Parliament and my understanding is that it will be one of the very first items that the Government will seek to have dealt with in the Senate in the coming week. So, this is in addition to the other measures that we think are necessary to ensure that the honest workers of our country, the honest unionists of our country and the honest businesses of our country get a fair go. Malcolm?
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, how far back do you anticipate this inquiry will be dredging? If it looks into the AWU slush fund, the links with former Prime Minister Gillard, that’s 20 to 25 years back. Is it open season on everything a quarter of a century back?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, again, it will be a matter for the Royal Commissioner. We’ve given the Royal Commissioner and we’re proposing for the Royal Commission broad terms of reference. The reason why you have a person of eminence and distinction such as former Justice Dyson Heydon doing this job is because such a person will bring the ordinary judgment that you would expect of a Royal Commissioner to all of the matters that come before him.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, how will you prevent, or do you want to prevent the cost of this Commission getting to the vicinity of the $66 million that was spent on the Cole Royal Commission? And secondly, there was a bit of discussion about employer groups earlier. What sanctions do you think should apply to employers or company directors who tip money in to union slush funds or pay bribes? I mean, should they be put on the stand by this Royal Commission? Should they face any sanctions?
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. People who have done the wrong thing should be appropriately investigated and where the evidence stacks up, they should face ordinary legal sanction. As Minister Abetz has made very clear, we will shine a great big spotlight into this dark corner of our community and our economy, we will see what it reveals and we will do everything we reasonably can to ensure that as a result, the ordinary law of the land is observed and enforced and that’s what should happen.
Now, on the Cole Royal Commission that you mentioned, the Cole Royal Commission – which I remember well from my days as Workplace Relations Minister – the Cole Royal Commission, sure it cost millions, but it saved billions. It cost millions but it saved billions. As a result of the work of the Cole Royal Commission, it is very credibly estimated that $6 billion a year in productivity savings accrued in the commercial construction industry. And, sure, there were not that many criminal prosecutions arising out of the Cole Royal Commission, but as a result of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, there were many prosecutions, most of them admittedly civil prosecutions, but particularly because the ABCC was prepared to prosecute and punish company officials, this whole culture of corruption, which takes two sides to be created, was drastically, dramatically reduced and it is to the ever-lasting discredit of the former Government that the Australian Building and Construction Commission was subsequently abolished. James?
QUESTION:
Just to clarify Andrew’s question before, do you anticipate any current or former Labor or Greens MPs being called before this Commission?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is entirely a matter for the Royal Commissioner.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, you've known about this for weeks, why did you choose to make this announcement today on the eve of parliament resuming? Is it just to ram home the political advantage that this might bring?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if I was looking to somehow maximise attention, you’d think I wouldn't have done it today given that something's happened in Bali which is going to be the major subject of news bulletins tonight, I would think. Then, of course, there’s the ongoing bushfire situation in Victoria and South Australia. The important thing to do is to make these announcements when the time is right. We've had a Cabinet discussion of this today and as a result of the Cabinet discussion, the Government is going to make a recommendation to Her Excellency the Governor-General for the appointment of a Royal Commission. As I said, this is all about trying to ensure that honest workers and honest businesses get a fair go.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, just a question on the Royal Commission, you say you've given it 12 months or so to report, now that obviously could blow out, but what's your thinking there? Apart from the possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from it, are you also envisaging that there will be legislative change recommended by the Commission to deal with what the Attorney's described as an endemic culture of secrecy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, again, Mark, it entirely depends upon the Royal Commissioner. Once you establish a Royal Commission you are in the hands of the Commissioner or the commissioners and we are confident that these terms of reference allow the Royal Commissioner what is necessary to tackle this culture of cover-up which has existed for far too long in some corners of some sectors of our community. Now, you appoint someone of Dyson Heydon's standing because you trust to his judgment and I'm very happy to put ourselves in the hands of Dyson Heydon and see where this Commission goes.
QUESTION:
This might be a question for Senator Brandis. Courts are often covered by statute of limitations for legal action to be taken. Are there any time limitations for a Royal Commission to look back at certain matters once they get their terms of reference?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
No.
QUESTION:
What about criminal law prosecutions resulting from any Royal Commission findings?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
Ordinarily – and there are exceptions to this – but ordinarily, the prosecution of crimes is not statute barred.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, do you think any companies or individuals that may have paid money into slush funds or bribes or that sort of area, if they were to come forward, should be given some sort of amnesty? And just on a second point, I'm not sure if you clarified whether there’s a starting cost that you have budgeted for this Royal Commission costing?
PRIME MINISTER:
We believe that the sorts of figures that have been bandied around for the costs of a Royal Commission of this kind are wildly inflated. We don't think it will cost anything like that and, look, we want people to come forward and tell their stories to this Royal Commission because we want the culture of cover-up and corruption to be ended for all time and that's exactly why you have a Royal Commission.
PRIME MINISTER:
What is your reaction to Schapelle Corby's release, Mr Abbott?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I am sure that this is a happy day for her, her family and her supporters. As far as I am concerned, I suppose, one aspect of a long saga, one chapter in a long saga, is closed.
QUESTION:
Mr Abbott, there was a lot said last week about potential drought assistance measures, some immediate ones. Can you just clarify where you're at in terms of the proposal that Barnaby Joyce might present and also are you worried that some of the immediate measures may derail some of the longer-term planning that is going on around drought policy in this country?
PRIME MINISTER:
We accept that there is a serious drought situation, particularly in parts of western Queensland and parts of western New South Wales. It is a serious situation and we do want to move as swiftly as we can to address it. The measures that we put in place to address it have got to be fair and they’ve got to be fiscally responsible. That's what I'm talking to Minister Joyce about. No doubt in the course of the next few days I'll have discussions with some of my Parliamentary colleagues about it is as well, but this is a serious situation. While drought and flood are a regular feature of life in Australia, particularly rural life in Australia, the situation in western Queensland and in western New South Wales is now very serious and that's why we propose to take some steps to deal with it.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, Australian journalist Peter Greste is still in detention in Egypt. We know the Foreign Minister has raised this case. Have you personally engaged the Egyptian Government on this matter and do you intend to? Secondly, there's a report out today on Closing the Gap suggesting there is $24 billion to be saved by Closing the Gap by 2031. Is your Government still committed to specific Closing the Gap targets?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that was certainly quite a lengthy question to close this press conference, Karen. Look, on the Al-Jazeera, the Australian Al-Jazeera journalist who's in detention in Egypt, could I just make two observations? The first is that I strongly support a free media. I support a free media here and I support a free media abroad and detaining journalists, if I could make a general observation, detaining journalists who are going about their ordinary business is not conducive to the kind of free media that in the end is in the long-run best interests of everyone. That's the first observation that I would make. Now, it is right for the Australian Government to make consular representations on behalf of Australians who are in trouble abroad. I don't think that we serve the best interests of those individuals by running a specific public commentary on them and that's why I don't want to say anything more about that particular case now.
On the Closing the Gap issues that you raised, yes, we are totally committed to the Closing the Gap targets and I'll have much more to say on Closing the Gap later this week.
Thank you so much.
[ends]