But minister concedes Labor leader’s position as AWU boss was ‘probably’ of political interest to her

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Michaelia Cash has denied her decision to write to the union watchdog about AWU donations to GetUp was motivated by Bill Shorten’s position as the union’s then-leader, the federal court has heard.

On the fifth day of the civil trial, Cash told the court she did not have any possible consequences in mind when she wrote two referral letters to the Registered Organisations Commission (the Roc) in August 2017.

Former Michaelia Cash staffer says union regulator employee tipped him off about AWU raid Read more

Under cross-examination, the AWU’s lawyer, Caryn Van Proctor asked Cash: “There was nothing that would be advantageous (to you) in referring it?”

“No, I would not accept that because it was merely a referral,” Cash replied. “Any further decisions were not being made by myself.

“They could do nothing, they could make inquiries that amount to nothing … they could make inquiries and determine that they would investigate.”

In a testy exchange with Van Proctor, Cash repeatedly refused to say whether she was “pleased or displeased” the Roc had launched an investigation into the donations.

She was then asked by Justice Mordecai Bromberg to tell the court her “personal response” to the investigation, or whether she was “neutral” to the development.

“It’s not so much (about) being neutral,” she said. “I would have had a view … my view would have been that I wondered what the outcome of the investigation would have been.”

Earlier, she told the court she first learned federal police were raiding the union’s Melbourne and Sydney offices on 24 October 2017 when she watched them unfold on television from her office in parliament.

Asked how she had responded, Cash said she “probably queried why” the union was being raided.

The union is seeking to quash the Roc’s investigation, citing the decision by members of Cash’s staff to leak news of the impeding raids to argue the investigation was politically motivated.

Earlier on Friday, the small business minister told the court in Melbourne that her interest in the donations was driven by her duty to investigate possible breaches of union rules.

Under repeated questioning, she did concede that the Labor leader’s position as AWU boss at the time of the donations was “probably” of political interest to her.

“I am politician, by nature I am political,” she said.

Later, Cash was asked about her conversation with her former media adviser, David De Garis, during the dinner break at Senate estimates on 25 October 2017. On that night she was forced to concede De Garis had tipped off the media about the raids.

Christopher Horan, Cash’s lawyer, successfully cited parliamentary privilege to argue she should not be forced to give specific evidence about the details of the conversation.

Cash had said in Senate estimates she had been told De Garis learned about the raids from “a media source”. He told the court Cash’s former chief of staff had tipped him off about the search warrants.

“A running commentary is being given in question time,” Horan told the court.

Cash declined to correct her evidence in the Senate on Thursday, saying she would be appearing in court.

Cash also told the court she had provided a statement to the Australian Federal Police when it investigated the media leak. She was not interviewed, the court heard.

The police later decided they would not lay charges.

The court had heard on Thursday that Cash’s chief of staff, Ben Davies, told police he had learned of the raids from Mark Lee, a media adviser at the Roc.

Cash told the court on Friday that Lee had informed her office two days after the raids that he no longer wanted to accept an offer to join her office.

Outside court on Friday morning, the AWU’s national secretary, Daniel Walton, said: “The challenge for minister Cash today is: is she going to hide behind all the technical legal arguments or is she going to … properly answer all the questions as to what she knew?”

The trial continues.