Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (15:05): I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. In moving this motion I would like to highlight my anticipation of the Attorney-General providing the full costs associated with the engagement of Commissioner Heydon. Whilst we know overall—at least from the information available to date—that the costs have been exorbitant, we still do not have the full picture. Indeed, today Senator Brandis could not even tell us if he had provided a personal sign-off for higher-than-standard rates with respect to Mr Stoljar. How he could not remember that he had signed off on such a thing is beyond me, but it fits into the overall context here of the political witch-hunt that has been involved with this royal commission. There are two factors which we should be looking at in relation to the royal commission. Firstly, this cost issue and secondly, also, the issue of impartiality. This is where, despite what might be put to Commissioner Heydon by 4 o'clock today from the parties and others, I would raise three issues. These are three pretty critical issues. They are the three issues that relate to 'three strikes and you are out'. Let's go back to the first strike. The first strike I observed at the time—and which Laura Tingle raised in one of her columns—was the intervention by Justice Heydon in which he suggested that the opposition leader 'might' be seen as an evasive witness. How inappropriate that conduct was! He managed to skip through on that, maybe simply because it was his first indiscretion. But let's look at the other indiscretions. The second one is—and I tire of this discussion as to whether an event was a fundraiser or not; frankly that is not the point. The point is: it was a Liberal Party function, regardless of whether any funds were made—although donations were sought—Tony Nutt, it was a Liberal Party function. The commissioner should have had the good sense at the outset to avoid that type of partiality, but he did not—until the media started asking questions— Senator Conroy: Then the cover-up started. Senator JACINTA COLLINS: You are right, Senator Conroy. As we are now aware: the cover up started. But let's go to the third issue. Last week, when I first saw the suggestions about this event when I looked online at Latika Bourke's article, I found a link—a link that was taken down—a connection. I cannot recall—I am searching even now—whether it was the New South Wales Law Society or the Law Council of Australia. But, either way, the connections within the legal fraternity in New South Wales need to be carefully addressed. This is why I raised the question: what balance is there in all of this being held within Eight Selbourne Chambers. Who is next door to whom? Who is having discussions with whom? Who is involving themselves in party events? These are all serious questions—when this Abbott government engages in the type of witch-hunts that have been involved in this royal commission. I might have originally thought otherwise. I might have taken the same approach that Bill Shorten took, which was to present himself and leave himself open to question. Then I heard Commissioner Heydon's comments during his evidence. How could he suggest he might 'seem' a particular way or another? It was outrageous in terms of his behaviour as the commissioner. That was his first strike, and now we have had two more. But let me close with the contrast. I thought it was more recent than this but I did a little search today because I wanted to make a contrast with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Abbott. The contrast I made was with something people might recall: a particular Seven Network interview of Mark Riley's. Did Mr Abbott, back in 2011, want to leave himself open to questions? No. He could not answer a single question for 24 seconds. This man who is now the Prime Minister looked ridiculous. One Liberal Party member thought he was going to hit Mark Riley. Make that comparison in your mind. (Time expired)