Bill Shorten arrives to give evidence for the second day of the Royal Commission into Union corruption in Sydney. Source: News Corp Australia

COMMISSIONER Dyson Heydon’s elegant skirmish with Bill Shorten today highlighted the different approaches the two men are taking to these trade union royal commission (TURC) hearings.

Justice Heydon believes they are about conduct in the union movement.

The instructions from Prime Minister Tony Abbott in February last year were for an inquiry “into alleged financial irregularities associated with the affairs of trade unions”.

Bill Shorten disagrees. He believes it is about him — this current session at least.

The Opposition Leader sees TURC as a vehicle for a political attack on his reputation, character and career record, so he has addressed a wider audience outside the Sydney hearing room.

Counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar has pleaded for “yes” or “no” answers but Mr Shorten has spoken over the heads of him and Justice Heydon — and at length — to those making political evaluations of his performance and his future.

That’s why Justice Heydon made his soft-spoken but pointed criticisms of Mr Shorten’s testimony: “What I’m concerned about is your credibility as a witness.”

He wasn’t suggesting he was lying. He was concerned Mr Shorten’s determined priority for self defence in his answers undermined the royal commission’s official purpose.

He believed the tactics from the Labor leader were reducing his credibility as a witness helping spot “financial irregularities”. Mr Shorten was playing a different game.

As Justice Haydon indicated, Mr Shorten has decided he was at the hearing today to rebut accusations and comments delivered overnight, not to follow the “plan” of Mr Stoljar to hunt financial hot spots.

The conflict was inevitable because despite those instructions from Mr Abbott the government has used the TURC to target Mr Shorten, outlining possible avenues of attack on his credibility, and questioning his standing as an alternative prime minister.

Tony Abbott has not stinted in demanding his rival give explanations for unstated matters.

So Bill Shorten has gone to lengths to defend his integrity, to deny conflict of interest, and to argue companies were pleased to make payments to the AWU because it negotiated and kept good agreements and was not militant.

Justice Heydon wanted to gently direct Mr Shorten: “It’s not all about you.”