It said Mr Stoljar was required to release the submissions by Friday to comply with a practice direction.

''The submissions are lengthy and commission staff worked under great pressure to meet the deadline set by the Commissioner on 23 October,'' it said.



''The commission is operating under an extremely tight timetable to complete its work. Timetables are set to give affected persons time to plan for and complete their responses. It is important that the Commission meet its obligations just as it expects affected persons to meet theirs.



''The submissions were completed in the early evening of 6 November and immediately released to all affected persons through the electronic court book shortly before being publicly released to the media at 8.07pm. There was no disrespect intended to any affected person by this process.''

Mr Shorten said on Saturday the political nature of the commission had been exposed in recent months.

''This commission's cost taxpayers $80 million,'' he said. ''People who are writing some of the reports are being paid millions of dollars.

''If you were being paid millions of dollars to write a report, do you think you could do it in a time line and not rush it at the last minute?''

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor, said on Saturday that it was concerning the commission would release information that was ''in the national interest in the dead of night''.

''The fact that it was done well beyond the media cycle and therefore did not provide an opportunity yesterday for Mr Shorten or other affected parties to comment comprehensively does also call into question the behaviour of the commission,'' he said.

''I mean there is no doubt in my mind that this commission is working in concert with executive government. Again, it underlines the executive nature of this inquiry. It's not a court of law, it's not independent, the royal commissioner himself has clearly shown a conflict of interest in accepting an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser and, wherever you look with respect to this commission, there has been improper process, the failure to allow natural justice to apply and a lack of procedural fairness generally.''


A spokesman for Mr Shorten said the ''politically-motivated'' commission was ''set up by the Liberal Party to throw mud and smear its political opponents''.

''As Mr Shorten has always said, he has always acted in the best interests of workers,'' he said.

''His actions have seen better pay, better conditions and safer workplaces for tens of thousands of Australians.

''He is proud of his record standing up for workers, the Liberals will always stand up for big business. Labor has absolutely zero tolerance for corruption or criminal activity in the workplace whether it involves an employer, employee or union.''

In relation to a controversial deal between Thiess John Holland and the AWU over the Eastlink project, Mr Stoljar said the commission should find there was an agreement that the joint venture pay $100,000 plus GST to the union each year for the duration of the project.

He said the genesis of the agreement was a proposal by Mr Shorten to Stephen Sasse in late 2004 that the joint venture provide financial support to the AWU in relation to the dedication of an organiser or organisers to the project.

He said the proposal was not the subject of a concluded agreement at the time the contract was let and Mr Rzesniowiecki and Mr Melhem assumed primary conduct of the negotiations.

''At some point, most likely shortly after the 2005 EBA was finalised, Julian Rzesniowiecki and Cesar Melhem agreed on a sum of $100,000 per year,'' he said.


''Shortly thereafter, Julian Rzesniowiecki and Cesar Melhem determined that the payments pursuant to the agreement would be effected by the AWU issuing invoices to TJH described as services that the AWU might provide to the joint venture.

''The commissioner should find that an agreement in these terms was implemented by payment of invoices issued by the AWU, many of which were false invoices.''

Mr Stoljar said Mr Shorten did not deny discussions regarding the arrangement, but said he did not recall any such discussion.

"Mr Shorten says that there were discussions during the course of negotiations with Mr Sasse about dedicating organisers to the site and providing various services,'' he said.

''Thirdly, Mr Shorten's understanding of the benefits of the above exercise was that it would play a role in achieving industrial stability on a site that might otherwise be at risk of problems caused by more militant unions.''