TO DESTROY JOINT
what way his political leanings bend”.
So why, asked Heydon, did unions now claim to know his own leanings? Why conclude that he couldn’t put any presumed leanings aside and judge on the facts and the law?
And how could his presumed leanings affect the job he was actually doing – making sure union officials were honest? Hadn’t the ACTU also agreed that it wasn’t saying Heydon was in fact biased?
Yet Shorten is still planning to ask the Senate on Monday to petition Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove to sack this corruption buster.
Would Shorten have dared to involve his mother-in-law in this grotesque protection racket when she was governor-general? But no wonder Shorten is so desperate.
First, Heydon is investigating deals Shorten struck as head of the Australian Workers’ Union that cut workers’ entitlements but had employers donate to the AWU. In one deal, an employer even paid $40,000 for Shorten’s personal benefit.
Second, Heydon is on the tail of crooked union officials, especially in the CFMEU. Already 26 union officials past and present have been recommended for charges.
Again, conservatives aren’t alone in being shocked that Shorten is protecting union crooks. Yet another former ACTU president, Martin Ferguson, says he “will not damn” a royal commission that “is potentially going to be very important in reforming the trade union movement and the Labor Party”.
And Ferguson, a former Labor minister, warned that too many MPs now “wait for the phone call from the trade union heavy to tell them what to do”.
Should such a party really be trusted with the government of this country? Should Shorten?