COMMENT
Is it time Bill Shorten fronted the media to answer questions on his pre-parliamentary union days?
The answer is a firm yes, but not exclusively for the reasons the government demands.
There are two dimensions to this: the substantive and the tactical.
Foremost is the substantive allegation of murky inter-union rivalries and the implication that members' interests have been relegated behind those of officials scheming and positioning to gain positions on the ladder of political power. On this, the case against the former AWU boss is hardly compelling.
Questions arising might include: did the Australian Workers Union under his stewardship commit to long-term industrial harmony in exchange for employer-funded memberships? Were workers therefore disadvantaged?
The central allegation here is that Shorten's ambition was such that he put the machinery of political patronage ahead of maximising the pay and conditions of workers, the main game being to sign them up as AWU members. It may be true, but then, it may be impossible to prove or disprove. In any event, it would not be the first time a union official or an MP for that matter, thought of his/her own advancement.
More specifically, it has been claimed that Shorten signed off on an industrial deal a decade ago with construction firm Winslow Constructors, in which workers scored a moderate wage rise in exchange for agreeing not to strike. Winslow paid $38,228 under the agreement's terms to the AWU, accounting for 105 memberships.
A second line of inquiry for the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption relates to a period when Shorten was already a federal MP, and thus seems even less likely to cause him problems.
This is the matter for which his successor as AWU Victorian state secretary, Cesar Melhem, stood down recently as Labor whip in the Victorian Parliament. The relationship of that matter to Shorten, if there is any, remains unclear.
The second dimension for Shorten's consideration is whether to speak publicly now or wait until the royal commission. This is a purely tactical decision.
While he has agreed to take the stand, this is unlikely to occur until late August or even September. Why wait?
Just as those who exercise a right to silence risk raising suspicion, the "wrongly" accused who do not take the earliest opportunity to protest their innocence also strain credulity.
Doubtless, the government initiated the trade union royal commission as a political device. With the Coalition unable to move on any industrial relations reform that might be linkable to the toxic WorkChoices laws of the Howard government, the royal commission is transparently designed to tarnish the Labor leader in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
Shorten might be well advised to seize the initiative. Julia Gillard called a press conference and took on all comers over her AWU links as a lawyer in the 1990s.
Shorten should do the same. His character as an alternative prime minister is being questioned. Voters have a right to timely answers.
