Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that the star witness of the coalition's Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Ms Kathy Jackson, was coached by the commission's legal team ahead of her appearance? Can he confirm Ms Jackson was told that the hearing would give her a chance to respond to media claims and that it was not necessary for her to complete a witness statement before her appearance?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party's ongoing campaign against a royal commission and—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Truth!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjects and says, 'Truth'—and it is correct that they are running an ongoing campaign to discredit a royal commission which has exposed corruption day after day within certain elements of the trade union movement. I would have thought any trade unionists worthy of their calling as a trade union official representing the workers of Australia would want to see a clean trade union movement.

What puts the lie to Senator Conroy's assertion is Ms Jackson's response after her day in the witness box. You know what? She felt 'ambushed' by the royal commission. Here is a classic example of the Australian Labor Party not being able to get their story right. Ms Jackson says that she was 'ambushed' and that that is why she was not as good a witness as she otherwise might have been—I do not know what her rationale was. Yet here we have the Australian Labor Party asserting that she was coached every single step of the way. Get your story straight.

One thing we know about this royal commission is that the Labor senators that want to defend trade union corruption cannot get their story straight—never can, never will, never have. What we want to ensure is that the worthy cause of trade unionism— (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I draw it to the chamber's attention that the minister made no attempt to answer the question; perhaps he may attempt to answer this one. Why did Ms Jackson receive advance personal coaching regarding questions she would be answering at the royal commission? Is it because she is regarded by the Prime Minister as 'heroic' and by this minister as 'courageous'? Did the commission take advantage of Michael's Lawler's offer to discard or cut out parts of Ms Jackson's witness statements?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Conroy, you have asked your question; let's have an answer.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand Senator Conroy's sensitivity, given that some of his factional warriors have been exposed in not the best of light by the royal commission and the evidence that has been coming out. To assert that Ms Jackson received special coaching—well, what fantastic special coaching it was; when she says afterwards, 'I was ambushed'—really, there is no credibility in Senator Conroy in any way, shape or form.

The documents show that procedural fairness was accorded, as it was to other people that have appeared before the royal commission. But I think the proof is in Ms Jackson's own statements that she felt 'ambushed'—in other words, no favours done. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I draw to the chamber's attention that the minister refused to answer the question. Why did Ms Jackson receive advance personal coaching? Isn't the royal commission's preferential treatment of Mr Abbott's heroic witness just further evidence this commission is irredeemably biased?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say to the honourable senator that not even the ACTU submission or indeed the CFMEU submission before Mr Heydon suggested bias. They specifically rejected bias; all they argued was 'apprehended bias'. For Senator Conroy to come into this place and seek to mislead is yet again indicative that there is no length the Labor Party will not go to try to protect the corrupt trade union elements. For the benefit of all honourable senators I point out that, in his submissions on allegations against Kathy Jackson, counsel assisting concluded that the matters:

… raise serious governance issues at the Victoria No 3 Branch, during the period Ms Jackson was Secretary.

It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate series— (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Heydon protected the crook.

Senator Edwards interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy and Senator Edwards. Order!

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got a crook—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy! Order!

Senator Cameron interjecting—

And Senator Cameron. Senator Back, your question.