Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (15:21): Just listening to Senator Cameron's performance I could not help but reflect on Shakespeare, not that his performance had anything to do with Shakespeare. But I am reminded of that Shakespearean comedy Much Ado About Nothing. Those of us who are fans of Shakespeare will know that the comedy Much Ado About Nothing has a central theme that a great fuss is made of something which is insignificant. Except that is only partially true because what we have here are the agents of the Australian union movement in this parliament trying to create a smokescreen from the very revealing evidence of the interim findings that have been made by that royal commission. Senator Cameron is trying to suggest that the royal commission is a tool for the Liberal Party. Far from being a tool for the Liberal Party, it is in fact, we would hope, a tool so that the ordinary, honest, hardworking workers of this country who happen to be members of the union movement can get a proper, accurate, clear insight to what it is that is actually happening inside their union movement. I just want to reflect briefly on what the royal commission has identified so far. What is it that Labor is trying to hide from? What is it that the agents of the Australian union movement in this place on that side are trying to hide from? Would it be evidence— Senator Conroy: Does that make you the agent of Optus? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator SMITH: You are far from Shakespearean, Senator Conroy. Would it be evidence that the New South Wales branch of the TWU, the Transport Workers Union, sent the ALP inflated sets of membership numbers between 2005 and 2013? Would that be it, Senator Conroy? Would it be that certain officials of the AWU, the NUW, the TWU, the CFMEU and the HSU have used their union's name and their union position to raise funds for their own benefit and the benefit of like-minded associates, even by compulsory levies on their employees in breach of duties owed to new members? Would it be that the evidence has been that the superannuation fund Sievers put the interests of the CFMEU above that of its own members? Would it be that? Or would it be that a building redundancy fund, the BERT, paid to fund illegal strike action and millions of dollars in CFMEU apprenticeship training? Would it be that? The list goes on and on. Senator Abetz: Drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Senator SMITH: They were stealing from drug and alcohol rehabilitation. I want to make an important point. The union movement contains within it the hardworking, decent members of Australia's community. What we are talking about here is the thuggery, intimidation and abuse of that authority by union members. There was a powerful opportunity today. The Labor Party, senators on that side of the chamber, could have come into this parliament and their efforts could have been talking about the importance of reform, the urgency of reform even. They could have taken their lead from the very effective op-ed in the Australian Financial Review today by former Prime Minister John Howard highlighting how in the past oppositions have lent their energies, their arm to important reform measures. Senator Conroy: It is remarkable how you can discover— Senator SMITH: Importantly, Senator Conroy, you might like to read or have read to you that op-ed piece in the Australian Financial Review. It would be very revealing about what you as the deputy leader of Labor in this place can do to support reform, reform that would help, not hinder, ordinary Australian workers. The challenge is yours. This is a smokescreen on your part.