The government’s defence of Dyson Heydon hinges on the argument that the law lecture the royal commissioner agreed to give was not a fundraiser because it wasn’t going to raise very much money – even though the invitation did solicit donations for the New South Wales Liberals’ election campaign and provide details of the relevant commonwealth electoral disclosure laws.

Apparently not-very-successful fundraisers don’t count as fundraisers.

Dyson Heydon 'overlooked' link between event organisers and Liberals Read more

Heydon’s own explanation hinges on his insistence he never knew it was a fundraiser, “overlooked” the fact that it was a Liberal party event and didn’t read the invitation that clearly showed it was both.

The eminent jurist apparently expects more leeway in terms of not reading things and not remembering things than he would be likely to afford one of his witnesses.

Neither of these somewhat contradictory explanations overcomes the fact that Heydon did agree to give a lecture to a Liberal party event after his appointment as royal commissioner and that this raises the perception of bias.

Here are the facts we know, laid out like a lawyer might:

Heydon accepted an invitation to speak at an occasion he knew was a Liberal party event after he became the head of the hugely contentious and political royal commission into trade union corruption. He says he thought at the time the royal commission would be over by then.

He had more correspondence with the organisers about the title and date of the lecture in March this year while he was still royal commissioner and put the August date in his diary. At this time, he says, “I overlooked the connection between the person or persons organising the event and the Liberal party which had been stated in the email of 10 April 2014. I also overlooked the fact that my agreement to speak at that time had been conditional on the work of the commission being completed before that time.”

He was sent the invitation (on Liberal party letterhead and advising that all donations would be spent on the NSW election campaign) on 12 June, but he says he didn’t read it.

When a lawyer appearing before the royal commission said she had not read a relevant document, Heydon was scathing in the commission’s interim report, pointing out that since she was “highly professional and experienced” this was “unlikely”.

His own explanations seem even less reassuring. If the ACTU goes ahead with an application of bias against him later this week, Heydon will – in the first instance – pass judgment on himself. If the ACTU don’t like his answer they can take it to the federal court.

Whatever Heydon’s intentions or motivations in accepting the speaking engagement, the political damage to the government’s intentions in setting up the royal commission has already been done.