Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
When royal commissioner Dyson Heydon wants documents, those in his sights are left in no doubt about what is required.
A copy of one of the many "notice to produce" orders signed by Mr Heydon during his 18 months investigating corruption in the ranks of the trade union movement forcefully outlines the commission's powers and the consequences for defying it.
"The Royal Commissions Act 1902 provides that … a person served with a notice to produce under section 2(3A) of that Act must not refuse to or fail to produce a document or other thing that the person is required to produce in accordance with this notice," states an order served on ANZ last September, directing the bank to hand over a decade's worth of personal banking records of construction union whistleblower Andrew Zaf.
"A contravention is punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months."
Rightly, Mr Heydon does not leave an inch of wriggle room in his orders.
But was the under-fire commissioner as forthcoming as he demands others to be when the tables were turned on him?
The union movement thinks not.
"We believe there has been inadequate disclosure of relevant documents made by the commission as to this matter," said ACTU secretary Dave Oliver on Thursday after a newspaper article revealed there was yet more to the paper trail around claims Mr Heydon could be seen as being biased towards the Liberal Party and should therefore resign his commission.
A timeline of events shows how the picture of a political scandal has emerged only slowly and by degrees:
August 13 Fairfax Media reveals Mr Heydon had accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. After pulling out – and insisting his decision was made "prior to any media inquiry being received" - Mr Heydon issues two emails between his office and the organiser Gregory Burton. They show Mr Heydon's secretary raised concern that the event could be described as party fundraiser, but also reveal that he had known for more than 24 hours that it was a Liberal-linked event before cancelling just an hour before the news broke.
August 17 Lawyers for the ACTU call for further documents "in order that a fully formed position can be reached" before calling on Mr Heydon to disqualify himself. Emails released show that as far back as April last year Mr Heydon was aware that the lawyers branch that had invited him to deliver the Sir Garfield Barwick address was directly associated with the Liberal Party - if not "overtly party political", according to Mr Burton.
On the same day, Mr Heydon was forced to interrupt a hearing of the royal commission to explain he had "overlooked" the political connection.
August 27 The ACTU writes again to Mr Heydon on the back of a story in The Australian that revealed counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar, SC, was alerted to the Liberal connection by the NSW Bar Association a day before Fairfax Media broke the story. The Bar passed on the tip after being approached by former Labor staffer and journalist Marcus Priest. The commission released Mr Stoljar's diary note but insisted that no mention of any journalistic interest was mentioned to the counsel assisting.
The third call for and release of documents in less than three weeks led to the second delay in Mr Heydon delivering his decision on whether he should stand aside. He will now consider his position and announce on Monday.
According to comments made on Friday, Mr Heydon retains the support of Prime Minister Tony Abbott but the saga has begun to look messier than most judges would like.
