ANALYSIS

THE spectacle of a private company paying for a trade union leader’s campaign for Parliament will jar with many voters.

That’s the problem Bill Shorten walked away with yesterday after six hours in front of the Trade Union Royal Commission today, and with another day to come.

The 2007 campaign funding deal with labour-hire company Unibilt will seem unnatural to some — like dogs playing with cats - and suspicious to others. Was this a pay-off for services rendered at the expense of union members?

There was no evidence, certainly not on day one of his appearance, that the Opposition Leader did anything illegal, immoral or unethical while he was Victorian and national secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union.

And the AWU members working for the donor company enjoyed wages and conditions above industry standards. In fact, they did very well from Mr Shorten’s negotiations.

But the late declaration of the election donation of $40,000 — lodged just 144 hours before he fronted Justice Dyson Heydon today — will add to those lurking suspicions.

He was not the first candidate to fail to make financial declarations on time. Both Joe Hockey (14 years late in one instance) and Tony Abbott have records of tardiness in satisfying public accountability.

And former Labor MP and Australian Council of Trade Unions executive Greg Combet said it was not unusual for candidates to get funds from companies, whether they be Labor or Liberal aligned.

Accusations of law-breaking are not Mr Shorten’s main problem. It’s the political exploitation of his testimony outside the commission.

While Mr Shorten was called as a witness and not as someone possibly facing adverse findings, the risk he faces is any accumulation of those suspicions. The government will no doubt leap on them and pump them up.

Mr Shorten said sharply “absolutely not” to suggestions he put self-interest before representation of members — the vilest of accusations to make against a union leader.

“Isn’t that a situation in which you’re using your position to gain an advantage for yourself, namely a full-time campaign worker?” he was asked by counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar.

But there are compounding issues, such as the campaign manager being listed on Unibilt’s files as a research officer, not as a political operative.

“Did Unibilt ask for any favours in return?” Ms Stoljar continued.

“No,” Mr Shorten replied. And there was no evidence the company had attempted to capitalise on the agreement, which Mr Shorten had sought.

But it’s those lingering suspicions that will hurt Mr Shorten.

If words are bullets in politics, doubts and suspicions are clubs.