Bill Shorten leaves the royal commission after giving evidence into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Picture: Adam Taylor Source: News Corp Australia

He said he’d answered “hundreds of questions on my record of standing up for Australian workers” and mentioned the fact the Commission had wrapped up earlier than expected, Elizabeth Colman writes.

Of Commissioner Dyson Heydon’s comments that Mr Shorten’s answers had been non-responsive, all that the opposition leader would say was that Mr Heydon had “a job to do”.

“I think it’s part of the rite of passage for a Labor leader that in Mr Abbott’s government you get called before a royal commission,” he said.

“It’s Tony Abbott’s royal commission.”

Mr Shorten did not take the opportunity to countenance what thousands of AWU members would think, or how they might feel, about their union taking money from their bosses whilst in negotiations over their futures.

The main issues that emerged during two days of hearings:

* Bill Shorten’s credibility as a witness at the royal commission into union corruption called into question.

* Commissioner Dyson Heydon warned Mr Shorten many of his answers are non-responsive.

* Labor spokesman on workplace relations Brendan O’Connor says commissioner Heydon’s comments are are “remarkable intervention” and “prejudicial”.

Thiess

* Bill Shorten has denied involvement in alleged “bogus” invoices, totalling more than $300,000, sent to construction company Thiess John Holland.

* Some of the money was supposed to be for “research work” on back strain but no evidence has been produced that any research was ever done.

* Deal allegedly linked to enterprise bargaining agreement related to Melbourne’s EastLink road project.

Conflicts of interest

* The commission examined a deal between the AWU and glassmaker ACI and $480,000 paid over a two-year period for education and training.

* Deal described in commission as a “serious conflict of interest” as EBA was being negotiated at same time.

* Commission also investigated deal with Chiquita Mushrooms in which the company paid $4000 a month for “paid education leave”, in deal that allegedly left workers worse off.

Shorten's credibility called into question

Bill Shorten’s credibility as a witness has been called into question at the royal commission into union corruption.

A day after it emerged that a $40,000 donation to his 2007 election campaign was only declared this week, the former union boss today denied involvement in alleged “bogus” invoices, totalling more than $300,000, sent to construction company Thiess John Holland.

Some of the money was supposed to be for “research work done on back strain” but no evidence has been produced that the research was ever done.

Mr Shorten’s response to questions about the deal prompted counsel assisting the inquiry, Jeremy Stoljar, to suggest the former Australian Workers Union secretary was being evasive. Mr Shorten was then also warned by commissioner Dyson Heydon. “A lot of your answers are non-responsive, some are responsive but then add something that isn’t responsive,” commissioner Heydon said.

“You, if I can be frank about it, have been criticised in the newspapers in the last few weeks and I think it’s generally believed that you have come here in the hope you will be able to rebut that criticism or a lot of it.

“I’m not very troubled about that though I can understand that you are and it’s legitimate for you to use this occasion to achieve your ends in that regard. What I’m concerned about more is your credibility as a witness.”

Labor spokesman on workplace relations Brendan O’Connor said “it was a remarkable intervention” on the part of the commissioner. “And he made some prejudicial comments about the appearance of Mr Shorten which I think calls into question the motives of the establishment of this royal commission into the union movement,” Mr O’Connor said.

“I’ve said all along this is a witch-hunt.”

The commission also examined a deal between the AWU and glassmaker ACI and $480,000 paid over a two-year period for education and training.

Mr Stoljar put it to Mr Shorten that it was a “serious conflict of interest” that an EBA was being negotiated with ACI “at the same time some side deal has been entered into”.

“Isn’t this really the position that the paid education income simply went into the consolidated revenue ... of the union and used whatever way the union thought fit?” Mr Stoljar asked.

Mr Shorten responded that it was a good idea to provide training.

“I don’t regard it as a conflict of interest,” he said

How today’s hearing at the royal commission into union corruption unfolded

with Elizabeth Colman and John Lyons

3.19pm: Shorten's lawyer now says the name doesn’t need to be kept secret, and the commissioner has rescinded the confidentiality order.

The hearing is now adjourned until Monday 10am in Canberra, where attention will switch to the CFMEU.

2.46pm: It’s not quite over yet: The commissioner wants to know whether it is necessary to keep suppressed the name of the anonymous union worker whose name was kept secret today. The inquiry has been adjourned for 10 minutes so Stoljr and his lawyer can confer.

2.43pm: After a spatter of questions concerning payments to Huntsman chemicals and about Cleanevet, counsel assisting the Commission, Jeremy Stoljar, has said he has no more questions for Shorten.

Shorten’s legal team hs declined the offer to re-examinehim but said it may in future, if the Labor leader is recalled.

2.35pm: Moving on again ... and we’re back to Cleanevent. You can refresh your memory here about the allegations Cleanevent employees lost out under an EBA signed with Shorten’s AWU:

CLEANEVENT: Deal cost cleaning staff $400m

2.21pm: Now we’re moving on to the global chemical manufacturer Huntsman Group, which says it paid the AWU for an “outsourced employee” in an ­unusual arrangement.

Under the 2004 deal, brokered while the union was headed by Bill Shorten, Huntsman said it paid the union “well over $100,000 a year” between 2004 and 2011 to cover the wages of a Victorian AWU employee.

The employee’s roles included helping Huntsman close down a factory in the inner-Melbourne suburb of West Footscray without industrial problems and ensuring workers “didn’t disrupt” operations at the site.

Shorten is being questioned about the retrenchment of the employee.

2.19pm: Greens leader Scott Ludlam says there’s no doubt the trade union royal commission is a “witch hunt,” writes Rosie Lewis.

Asked his thoughts about TURC revelations, Senator Ludlam said royal commissions being set up by governments to grill the opposition were “incredibly dangerous”.

“Royal commissions are among the most powerful, high-powered investigative mechanism that we have in this country. Now three opposition prime ministers have appeared in front of it. There’s no question it’s a witch hunt.”

Senator Ludlam wants a national anti-corruption body and an increased push for reform of political donations.

2.16pm: Stoljar asks how did the practice start that Winslow would pay membership dues itself to the AWU in respect of its workforce?

Shorten: “…it’s quite common place for companies to pay union dues to the union from what they’ve collected from their employees.”

Stoljar points out that he is talking about cmpanies paying for memberships themselves, not collecting fees from workers and passing them on.

Shorten: “My preference was at all times the union members pay their own union dues. I believe that gives a more engaged membership.... but what profoundly weakens organising capacity is when people are not in the union at all.”

2.11pm: For the second time in two days, Shorten has asked to keep the name of union workers confidential - in this case, it is those responsible for maintaining the membership roll. “It’s not a secret matter…it’s just not everyone wants to be mentioned,” he says.

The names are written down instead, he adds..

2.07pm: Now we’re onto Winslow Construction. The commission is shown a letter from Winslow to the AWU, informing it of union members that have left the company and asking the union to update its records..

You may remember that the AWU is claimed to have had an “unusual” sweetheart deal with Winslow Constructors whereby all employees of its subdivision arm would have AWU fees paid for by the company.

Last month, Victorian AWU state secretary Ben Davis told the inquiry the union, under the leadership of now state MP Cesar Melhem, had created phantom members about which he felt “decidedly uncomfortable”.

2.00pm: They're back., and Bill Shorten is still being questioned about labour hiring at Chiquita.

1.36pm: Mr Shorten’s second day before the Royal Commission into trade unions has been highly damaging, writes John Lyons. The damage has come not just from some of the invoices from his time running the Australian Workers’ Union – although those are bad enough.

So many of those invoices were not for the matters written on them.

The real injury to the Opposition Leader came from a pointed intervention from the bench by a clearly-frustrated Royal Commissioner, former High Court judge Dyson Heydon.

The worst thing that can happen to a witness at a Royal Commission is for their credibility to be questioned – which is exactly what occurred this morning to Mr Shorten.

1.14pm: The inquiry has adjourned for lunch. We’ll be back at 2 pm.

1.03pm: Shorten told the inquiry: “I wish no one ever had to go to a labour hire company if they didn’t want to, but what you are implying is somehow the union has got a magic wand and can stop workplace change, I don’t how how you can say that”.

However, writes Elizabeth Colman, the AWU instigated the deal to install 300 labour hire employees at Chiquita Mushrooms, according to the testimony of the company’s former HR manager, which also suggested it was a deliberate and proactive act by the union.

1.02pm: Shorten says he didn’t want to see a continuation of a problem of over 100 women carrying potentially permanent injuries.

Shorten: “Now, I could bury my head in the sand and say change is too hard, just no way... you know, we’ll fight the bosses, you know, and maybe that is in fact what you are suggesting I should do.... I can’t turn my back on the problems, if you’ve got serious permanent injuries happening to people, and just saying well not my problem you sort it out.”

1.01pm: Shorten is asked was there some oral agreement reached between Chiquita and the AWU for paid education leave?

He says: “Well, reading this letter, I would say there was a written and an oral agreement.”

Stoljar asks if the money was “being paid to avoid disruption to the production from the use of independent contractors?”

Shorten: “I wouldn’t trigger a payment in that context.”

Shorten: “This trend of using labour hire across Australian industry has been underway for a fair while. Unions do their very best in my experience to try and secure permanent employment.”

Stoljar: “What, by shifting them over to labour hire?”

Shorten disputes Stoljar’s assertion that there was a “drastic reduction” in Chiquita’s workforce after move to labour hire firm.

Shorten: “When you talk about a drastic reduction, that comment fails to comprehend that most of the people who were moved from permanent employment get a redundancy package and they start again on the Monday working for the labour hire company in the same terms.”

He reasons that if Chiquita Mushroom continued as it was the company would be out of business and “then there’s noone employed”.

12.52pm: Bill Shorten’s questioning over Chiquita is now dealing with invoices from the mushroom company to the AWU for “paid education leave” for $4,000 a month.

Counsel: “There’s no provision in this EBA about paid education leave, is there?

Shorten: “...Not that I could see looking at the front.”

Counsel: “And yet paid education leave or amounts paid for paid education leave start to be paid. So, for example, there is an invoice simply for paid education in the amount of $4,000 and the next month another invoice for paid education.”

Counsel: “Did you have a discussion with someone at Chiquita Mushrooms about starting to invoice for these amounts?”

Shorten: “No I don’t believe so.”

Counsel: “Well did someone else have a discussion?”

Shorten: “I would assume so if the company is paying paid education leave.”

12.44pm: Back to Chiquita. Shorten confirms there was a “big issue” which was causing some difficulty -i.e. the high rate at which its workers were being injured because the pay rate encouraged them to rush their work.

Shorten: “The piece rate was injuring people…you can’t have a system of remuneration which is going to injure people permanently.”

12.42pm: You may have missed it, but Eric Abetz has gone to the extreme lengths of comparing Bill Shorten’s behaviour to that of disgraced Labor MP Craig Thomson. However, writes Rosie Lewis, Tony Abbott has declined to support or reject the comparison, saying he’ll let matters unfolding at the royal commission “speak for themselves”.

“I’m not going to offer a running commentary on the royal commission,” the Prime Minister said in Grafton today.

“The important thing is to ensure that we have the best and cleanest union movement. The important thing is to ensure we’ve got honest unions that are being run for the benefit of their members.

“We need to strengthen our institutional arrangements so that the kinds of things that we’ve seen highlighted at the royal commission can’t happen in the future.”

Greg Combet listens to Bill Shorten giving evidence at the unions inquiry. Picture: John Feder. Source: News Corp Australia

12.40pm: Today’s inquiry has brought up more questions than answers, writes John Lyons. The questions which ride over all of Bill Shorten’s answers - or non-answers, as suggested this morning by the Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon - are these: if all of these deals the AWU under Bill Shorten did, including getting a private company to pay for his campaign director, why were they not described in invoices and documents for what they were? Why were they called things they were not?

And finally, if they were all good deals for the members, why weren’t the members told about them?

COLMAN: Side deals and ‘bogus’ invoices

12.33pm: Now we’re moving on to the AWU’s deal with Chiquita mushrooms.

Shorten says he does remember Chiquita as it was a “particularly complex negotiation”.

Stoljar: “Chiquita was one of Australia’s largest mushroom farms”.

Shorten: “Best paid mushroom farm in Australia.”

The deal betwen the AWU and Chiquita is the perfect example of a collusive union-employer arrangement, a deal where everybody wins, except the people who were not in the room when the deal was hatched, Grace Collier writes. You can read her comment piece here: Mushroom staff kept in dark

12.32pm: Stoljar puts to Shorten that there has been a “serious conflict of interest” in an agreement, where payments of half a million dollars, are going to come from an employer directly to the union at the very time that the union is negotiating the EBA.

Stoljar: “When you negotiate an EBA you have to go in as hard as you can for members, do you agree with that?”

Shorten: “Always have, always will.”

Stoljar: “And your position is fundamentally weakened if at the same time you’re negotiating a secret deal whereby $500,000 gets paid direct to the union. Do you agree with that?”

Shorten: “Not at all.”

Stoljar: “You say that’s perfectly alright.”

Shorten: “No, I don’t agree with your characterisation over the last minute-and-a-half.”

12.31pm: Shorten describes himself as an “innovative” union leader, Elizabeth Colman writes.

“Paid Education Leave was was one of the strings to the bow which I, as an innovative union leader, was trying to do to raise funds...”

12.21pm: We are looking at the union’s financial reports for the year ending 2004. It shows “paid education income” of $327,000 was the second biggest source of revenue for the union that year. But Shorten draws our attention to the $5 million income which he says are “membership dues”.

Shorten: “What did happen in my time in the union - so, paid education leave is not, or just on five per cent of the Union’s income and something like 88 per cent is membership. We understood that our role as a membership organisation but what I did do in my time is diversify so I could expend our expenses on education and training.”

12.13pm: Shorten is being quizzed about an oral agreement between the AWU and ACI which involved the payment of $500,000 for paid education leave.

Stoljar questions why the oral agreement - where half a million was paid - was not in the EBA.

Stoljar: “It’s not in the EBA and and if members want to find out about it there going to have to go to your annual accounts and somehow try and work out that an oral agreement has been entered into.”

Shorten does not deny the oral agreement but says it was reinforced by the invoices and the written documentation. He says they did pursue trying to get paid education into their EBAs but employers “weren’t willing to go down that path as a general rule, with a few isolated exceptions”.

Shorten: “So the fact that it’s not in the EBA doesn’t mean we didn’t want it in the EBA, it just means given the balance of everything else we were achieving it was viewed that that wasn’t the issue you have an industrial dispute about.”

12.08pm:Elizabeth Colman gives a wrap of the morning so far.

Payments to the Australian Workers Union are the topic of the day, namely: payments to Bill Shorten’s union from Thiess John Holland construction firm and glassmaker ACI.

The invoices sent by the AWU say the money - around $100,000 a year plus GST in the case of Thiess, for example - are for a range of services provided by the union from dinner dances to research on health and safety and the controversial concept of “paid education leave” which Shorten is at pains to describe and contextualise.

Stoljar has already made the bold claim these descriptions are “bogus”. His line of questioning supports the theory that these payments are in fact part of a revenue-raising “side-deal” arranged by the union with the companies during negotiations enterprise bargaining agreements for workers.

It’s a damning claim Mr Shorten has so far denied vigorously.

Meanwhile, Grace Collier makes a good point in this tweet.

11.57am:Bill Shorten’s second day in the witness box at the trade union Royal Commission has begun like his first - a damaging political hit on his credibility and ongoing unanswered questions about the substance of secret payments being made directly to union officials, writes Dennis Shanahan.

In the meantime, here is Grace Collier’s take on the morning.

11.55am: They’re baack. Another invoice from ACI is under the microscope.

Stoljar: “We’ve got something approaching half a million dollars being invoiced by the AWU Victoria to ACI and being paid by ACI over a two-year period or so.”

11.37am: The hearing is adjourned until 11.50am

In the meantime, Troy Bramston makes a salient point in these tweets about Bob Hogg’s demand that Shorten resign. You can read Rosie Lewis’ article on Hogg here: ‘It is simple. Just go’

A screen grab of the open letter from Bob Hogg to Bill Shorten posted on Hogg's Facebook. Source: Facebook

11.35am: We are looking at invoices for “paid education leave” from AWU to ACI glassworks. One of those shown is a 2003 invoice for $72,500.

Shorten says ACI was a company willing to back his concept of a paid education levy: “It was the company supporting the Union pro that a paid education levy was a good idea.

Stoljar: “The EBA doesn’t have anything about paid education levy, does it, Mr Shorten?”

Shorten: “No.”

Stoljar: “Can you offer any explanation as to why that wasn’t included?

Shorten: “I certainly can - and you’ve now quoted a sequence of documents which show the evolution of the concept. “Very briefly - very briefly - 1975 Gough Whitlam...”

Stoljar: “Is that the explanation you offer as to why the requirement to pay paid education was not include in this EBA?

Shorten: “Well, again, you’d have to go to the people involved in the clause by clause negotiation which I was not. Unions frequently make claims. It won’t surprise you to know that not every claim a union makes gets accepted by an employer.”

11.32am: The questioning of Bill Shorten’s credibilty as a witness by Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon is a body-blow for Mr Shorten, writes John Lyons. This is ominous for Mr Shorten - it gives a window into what judgment the Royal Commissioner has made of Mr Shorten’s evidence after more than a day listening to him. Today, after listening to his evidence about AWU invoices for more than an hour, Justice Heydon intervened:

“A lot of your answers are non-responsive”, he told Mr Shorten.

“You, if I can be frank about it, have been criticised in the newspapers in the last few weeks and I think it is generally believed that you have come here in the hope that you will be able to rebut that criticism, or a lot of it.”

Commissioner Heydon added:

“What I am concerned about more is your credibility as a witness. A witness - and perhaps your self interest as a witness as well. A witness who answers each question “yes”, “no”, “I don’t remember” or clarifies the question and so on, gives the cross-examiner very little to work with.”

Bill Shorten gives evidence for the second day of the Royal Commission into union corruption in Sydney. Picture: John Feder. Source: News Corp Australia

11.26am: Stoljar has begun asking Shorten about an EBA with ACI glassworks.

11.25am: For the benefit of readers, this is what Shorten had to say on the topic of paid education leave yesterday:

“I have a personal conviction that the future of workplace relations is all about having better educated and skilled workforce and management relations. Without taking too much of the Commission’s time, there is one view of industrial relations which says employer wins or employee wins and that the twain can never meet. My view is that to secure job security and good remuneration for employees, you need profitable and competitive companies, they have to be sustainable. The best way to create sustainable companies which is the in the best interests of their employees is you improve product difficult or put more bluntly it is when you can find a win/win in industrial relations. So I was very committed. We have the pressures of the cuts to funding by the then government. You have enterprise bargaining requiring more work at the enterprise level and my only personal view and you have international trends. So we pushed towards how do we subsidise and support more education and training? The workers. Now, there’s a range of ways you can do it and one concept that we were working at the time was called paid education leave. It was the idea of a Levy, a paid education Levy, which would be provided by the company. Some small per capita nominal amount which can be used for the training of employees and workers to improve the quality of relations.”

11.22am: Shorten is asked about a “special fund: for workers eduction. He asks for a chance to talk about the “context” of the paid education fund. The commissioner tells him; “It is a sense at your peril”: if it turns out not to have very much to do with the last 10 or 15 questions “it doesn’t look very satisfactory”.

Shorten: “I will take your gentle guidance and wait.”

11.13am: Mr Heydon also addresses Shorten’s long, repetitive answers.

He says:”A lot of your answers are non-responsive”.

“You, if I can be frank about it, have been criticised in the newspapers in the last few weeks and I think it is generally believed that you have come here in the hope that you will be able to rebut that criticism, or a lot of it.

“I’m not very troubled about that though I can understand that you are and it’s legitimate for you to use this occasion to achieve your ends in that regard.

“What I’m concerned about more is your credibility as a witness.

“A witness - and perhaps your self interest as a witness as well. A witness who answers each question “yes”, “no”, “I don’t remember” or clarifies the question and so on, gives the cross-examiner very little to work with.

“I do think some concentration on your part on giving a proper answer as full an answer as the question demands but no more than that is in your self interests and it’s something Mr Stoljar is entitled to.”

11.05am: In a sudden and stunning interjection Commissioner Heydon is giving Shorten a huge ticking off - has just attacked his “credibility” and “self-interest” as a witness. Heydon says Stoljar has been “indulgent”, but tells Shorten “it’s in your interest” to “curb these answers”.

He also makes the point that Shorten has been under attack in the media, and strongly suggests to the opposition leader that he appears to be using the commission to turn things around.

11.01am: Now we are looking at invoices from the AWU to Thiess for “Red card training”.

Shorten explains the training was introduced by Work Cover in Victoria in 2004-2005: “Work Safe put in a new minimum standard of training for construction workers going on a construction site which is very sensible.”

An email March 31 2008 from Julian Rzesniowiecki to Cesar Melhem - titled “Invoice” - contains a breakdown of the “agreed amount” - i.e.$110,000 inc GST.

“... and $10,083 Red card. (Red card otherwise would have cost us nothing as John Holland run it.)”

Stoljar puts this to Shorten, Shorten says: “I’m loathe to sort of repeat my answers but several quick points. One, this invoice is issued well after I’m involved in the union.”

10.55am: Elizabeth Colman recaps the first hour of the inquiry for us:

This morning the questionable union fund-raising actions of Cesar Melhem, who was Mr Shorten’s assistant secretary and later his successor, have been laid at the Opposition Leader’s feet.

This is not the first time this has happened.

The central question is how much did Mr Shorten know about what Mr Melhem was doing in the “day-to-day” operations.

Today, Mr Shorten has suggested the answer to that is not much; his oft-repeated quote of the past two days is that he didn’t have a direct “line of sight” on various matters.

10.50am: Re that letter, Stoljar: “That suggests to you, doesn’t it, that claim for services in the amount of $110,000 is not a genuine claim because Thiess is just saying, ‘withdraw it and we’ll cover it with ads in the Australian Worker, attendance of the ball et cetera’.”

Shorten: “Dare I say it again, this is after my time as Victorian secretary. The only other thing I can read is this is a document prepared by a company and sent to someone else.

“You’re asking me to comment on, interpret its meaning. All I take from it is that the union was getting the company to pay ads in a union journal, nothing untoward about that.”

10.47am: Stoljar produces a document from Thiess that the Commissioner only got in “the last hour or two”.

Before this, we are shown a letter from Julian Rzesniowiecki, HR manager at Thiess John Holland, to Cesar Melhem “Re: Invoices” dated April 16 2007.

“Instalments 1 & 2 will be paid. Please ask Michael to withdraw instalment 3. It will be covered by the Ads in Australian Worker (magazine), attendance at the ball etc... If we don’t reach the agreed sum we can address at end of year.”

Counsel: “It’s clear isn’t it, Mr Shorten, it’s clear as you sit here today that what they are talking about is getting it up to $110,000, inclusive of GST, which would be in the next instalment?”

Shorten says it is not untoward if a company is further engaged after the EBA is signed.

The letter from Julian Rzesniowiecki, HR manager at Thiess John Holland, to Cesar Melhem Source: Supplied

10.46am; Shorten has been presented with a 2007 tax invoice from AWU for “services” $100,000 + GST “as per Cesar Melhem”.

Shorten: “I was not administering the day-to-day matters for the Victorian branch, I did not involve myself in formulation of the charging of services for training, for education or any other matter. Once you’ve ceased being State Secretary of a Union you’ve ceased being a State Secretary of a Union...Sure I would talk to Mr Melhem about matters of national importance to the Union as I would to all the other State Secretaries.”

10.42am: Shorten is being grilled over more invoices, while he continues to claim he wasn’t involved in their issuance.

While we’re on the subject of EBAs, it’s worth reading this article by Grace Collier, who analyses one of the many Shorten deals which he claims always left workers better off.

COLLIER: You left workers worse off, Bill

10.39am: Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar is hitting Shorten as hard, and directly, as he can. After putting to Mr Shorten that “bogus” invoices were issued by the AWU, under him, to Thiess John Holland, Stoljar claimed invoices were sleight of hand, John Lyons writes. He

asks Shorten if payments made by Thiess to the AWU Victoria, such as an invoice from AWU Vic to Thiess John Holland for “advertising in The Australian Worker magazine (which Shorten edited as National Secretary) were simply used to justify installments to make up $100,000 a year plus GST.

Stoljar: Isn’t the position this: that invoices were being issued simply to make up amounts of the yearly instalment, $100,000, plus GST, and no regard was given as to whether in many cases at least the services for which payment was claimed had actually been provided?

Shorten: “In my case completely untrue”.

10.25am: Shorten is confronted with invoices between the AWU and Thiess. The covering letter refers to $2k for calendars and $500 for the Workchoices conference as well as $38,750 for training and $25,000 sponsorship for OHS conference.

Stoljar: “Did you have discussion with anyone from the Thiess John Holland project about, while you were negotiating the EBA about an arrangement pursuant to which Thiess John Holland would pay three installments of $100,000 a year plus GST for the life of the Eastlink project?”

Shorten starts talking about dinner dances for shop stewards, and describes the “standard business of the unions”

“...I wouldn’t be doing my job if I was asking workers to pay for their own tickets to a dinner dance or to pay for their own health and safety rep training, for instance when I can get a company to do it.”

Stoljar refocuses him: “To your knowledge did the joint venture agree to pay the AWU $100,000 a year plus GST for the three year life of the project”

Shorten: “No I do not believe that was the case. The services which I charge for, which the union charge for, in my time could always be explained by reference to functions performed.”

10.21am: In case you’re not sure why Shorten is being questioned over Thiess John Holland, here is our report on allegations concerning donations from the company: Under-siege Shorten’s early grilling

In essence, it has been alleged the Shorten-led Australian Workers Union received more than $211,000 from the company after a workplace agreement he negotiated in 2005 to build the $2.5 billion EastLink road project in Melbourne was finalised.

Documents lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission show Thiess John Holland paid the money in donations and “other receipts” in 2006 and 2007.

10.19am: We are being shown an email from Julian Rzesniowiecki, HR manager at Thiess John Holland, to Cesar Melhem regarding invoices.

The email says : “Four separate invoices please and also you need to deduct the $2K I paid for the AWU calendars and $500 for the Workchoices conference.”

When questioned on this, Shorten stresses he was no longer secretary at that stage and can only cast light based on his general knowledge: “You’re asking me what what is a HR manager for a company who is emailing someone who has come to a position after I finished and what was the reason for the HR manager saying that. Now, I don’t know.”

10.15am: Shorten stresses the role demarcation between himself and Cesar Melhem: “Once I negotiated the EBA my assistant secretary Mr Melham became responsible for the day to day project administration”

10.12am: Extraordinary line of questioning on invoices sent to Thiess by AWU, as counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar goes straight for the jugular.

Stoljar: “Is this a bogus invoice that’s claiming payment for work that was never done?

Shorten: “I would never be party to issuing any bogus invoices full stop.”

10.10am: The inquiry is told that the total amount paid by Thiess to AWU Victoria for the financial year identified was just over $300,000.

Counsel for the commission Jeremy Stoljar brings our attention to an invoice of 18 January 2006 from the AWU to Thiess John Holland for “research work done in Back Strain in Civil Construction Industry”.

This was issued when Shorten was still State Secretary at the AWU.

Stoljar: “Can you tell the Commission there was research work done on back strain in civil construction ind in that period?”

Shorten: “I can’t say. I don’t recall it, but I believe it would have been if the invoice is issued.

“Research in OH & S is certainly something which I recall the Union doing generally, although I don’t particularly recall this particular piece of work.”

And just as Shorten starts to explain “how a union functions” - Stoljar strikes.

“The Royal Commission has spoken to the person who authorised the payment of this invoice at Thiess John Holland and his evidence was that he’s not aware of whether any such research was done, he simply received the invoice and caused it to be paid.”

10.05am: No mucking around: they’re straight into donations by Thiess John Holland.

10.04am: Just to remind you: Shorten has at least ten questions to answer at this inquiry. you can read Elizabeth Colman’s report here: Ten questions for Bill to answer

10.01am: Off we go.

Today, we are expecting counsel to touch on matters that were surprisingly bypassed yesterday, including deals with Melbourne companies Chiquita Mushrooms and Winslow Constructors.

10.00am: Bill Shorten arrived early for day two of his Royal Commission appearance in Sydney, John Lyons writes. He’s been with lawyers and advisers since arriving at 7.40 am. Lawyers have entered the room while Greg Combet is waiting with lawyers, again, to support Mr Shorten. The counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar, has just walked in. Commissioner Dyson Heydon likes things to run to clockwork - he usually enters the room right on 10 am in the hearing which is in the centre of Sydney’s CBD.

9.55am: The inquiry will start in five minutes. In the meantime, former ALP national secretary Bob Hogg has called for Mr Shorten’s resignation.

Mr Hogg’s call comes after it was revealed the opposition leader only declared on Monday a $40,000 donation made by labour-hire company Unibilt in 2007.

“Bill, do something for the ALP. It is simple. Just go,” Mr Hogg wrote on social media on Wednesday night

9.23am: In the wake of the revelations yesterday that Mr Shorten only this week declared a 2007 donation from labour-hire company Unibilt, independent senator Nick Xenophon has said he wants changes to political donations to end what he calls a “financial arms race” in Australian politics.

Senator Xenophon told ABC radio this morning that there needed to be more public funding of political parties and strict conditions on private donations, as well as a quicker disclosure system

Devil in the detail

9.21am: Mr Shorten and former Labor minister and union boss Greg Combet have arrived at the commission. Mr Combet has been acting as an adviser with Mr Shorten’s legal team.

Following Wednesday’s grilling, Mr Combet praised the federal Labor leader’s performance.

“I think he’s been very upfront about it all,” Mr Combet told reporters in Sydney on Wednesday

9.15am: Good morning, and welcome to day two of Bill Shorten’s appearance before the unions royal commission. The second day of questioning will begin at 10am.

Just to recap: yesterday, the Labor leader came under pressure at the royal commission into trade union corruption yesterday over his dealings with two Victorian companies when he was head of the Australian Workers’ Union, admitting a failure to declare a $40,000 ­donation to his own political campaign and that low-paid cleaners would have been “vastly better off” without a deal his union nego­tiated for them.

On his first day before the inquiry, Mr Shorten made a series of unexpected ­admissions, including confirming that he hired Young Labor member Lance Wilson to work on his 2007 election campaign, but ­invoiced most of the cost of the salary to Melbourne business Unibilt in what amounted to a political ­donation that was subsequently not declared.

Mr Shorten told the commission he took “ultimate responsibility” for the failed declaration, which was corrected only in the past week.