Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the personal coaching received by Ms Jackson from the royal commission's legal team. I also refer to rule 24 of the Law Council's Australian solicitors' conduct rules which states that solicitors must not 'coach a witness by advising what answers the witness should give to questions which might be asked'. How is providing Ms Jackson with advice on the content of a question or brief at an upcoming hearing consistent with this rule?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I assume your question is based on the report in The Australian newspaper this morning and the documents referred to in that report. Senator Cameron, nothing in that report and nothing in those documents supports the assertion that you and Senator Conroy in your invincible ignorance have made that there was coaching. There was no coaching whatsoever. What you fail to understand, Senator Cameron, is that Ms Jackson approached the royal commission with information, and in the ordinary course of events, as is the case with every witness who approaches a royal commission with information, that witness is interviewed. That is utterly orthodox and entirely appropriate—for a witness who approaches a royal commission with information to be interviewed. Furthermore, Senator Cameron, it is absolutely appropriate and absolutely—

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

Pause the clock.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order on relevance: I was asking about coaching. Coaching is what happened, and the minister should go to the question of coaching and how it applies to rule 24 of the Law Council's conduct rules.

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

Thank you, Senator Cameron. The minister has been directly relevant to the question. Minister.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, as I pointed out to you, there was no coaching whatsoever. Nothing in either the press report or the documents supports that proposition. Senator Cameron—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, I know you were a CFMEU official. I know you have got a lot in it to defend here, but let me turn to your colleague Senator Cameron.

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

Pause the clock.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Could you please protect me from industrial deafness.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Before we continue: the noise level is unacceptable; it is completely unacceptable.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order! You too, Senator Conroy.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, for staff of a royal commission to interview a witness is not coaching. For staff of a royal commission to give an indication to a witness as to the scope of questions—

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

Pause the clock.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, again a point of order on relevance. I have asked: how is providing Ms Jackson with advice on the content of a question brief at an upcoming hearing consistent with the rule? He has not gone to that issue, and the minister should go to that issue. You should draw his attention to the question.

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

Senator Cameron, I believe the minister has been directly relevant. He has referred to the aspects of your question in relation to coaching. Minister, you have the call.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For staff of a royal commission to give a witness an indication of the topics that will be covered in their examination is not coaching. Not only is it not coaching; it is utterly orthodox. When Mr Shorten—by the way, Senator Cameron, who did not approach the royal commission in a helpful way to offer information—was called as a witness before the royal commission— (Time expired)

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

You really stuffed up then, George. Oh, no! You stuffed that up.

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

Order on my left.

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

That is a very serious allegation he just made. I ask you to make him withdraw that. It is a very serious allegation he just made against the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I have not heard any allegation.

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

It is a very serious allegation.

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

Senator Brandis, I did not hear any allegation that you made about the Leader of the Opposition—but if you could assist.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, not only did I not make an allegation against Mr Shorten—

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

Yes, like last time—

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

Order! Senator Conroy!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not actually have the opportunity to finish my sentence.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said he was unhelpful.

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

You actually said that.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a liar!

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

That is a reflection.

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

I am sorry, Senator Conroy. If the words were 'he was unhelpful', I do not see that necessarily as a reflection on—

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

It is an absolute reflection.

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

I am sorry—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I am happy to review Hansard and I am happy to take advice.

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

It is the context in which he said it.

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

I agree with context, Senator Conroy. I am happy to take advice. I cannot have points of order and I cannot debate this issue with individual senators. I am going to do this orderly. Senator Colbeck is on his feet, seeking a point of order—I assume, Senator Colbeck?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I do seek a point of order. I might ask Senator Collins to withdraw her remark.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which?

Government senators: You yelled out 'liar'.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins should withdraw. She made a reflection on the Attorney. The circumstances around it are irrelevant. Senator Collins should withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! On the point of order—we are going to do this orderly—Senator Conroy.

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

Thank you. Senator Brandis a few weeks ago reflected across the chamber. You heard him and commented on it the next day. He stood up and denied he had even made the statements that you heard. So this is a man that is not worthy of being protected by the chair, and you should seek to get him to withdraw and you should dismiss that absolutely irrelevant point from Senator Colbeck.

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

I will determine, Senator Conroy, what is relevant and what is not relevant.

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

You heard him!

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

Order! I am deliberating on the points of order. I will make a decision at the end of the points of order. Senator Bernardi, a further point of order.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, in support of this point of order, Senator Collins used most unparliamentary language with respect to Senator Brandis. Many of us heard it. It is incumbent upon the decency of Senator Collins to withdraw it. That is all that is required.

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

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw.

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

Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Wong, on the same point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on Senator Conroy's point of order and the request that the Attorney do the right thing, as Senator Collins has just done, and withdraw. The inference, as I understand it, that Senator Conroy and the opposition are concerned about is an inference about the conduct of Mr Shorten at a royal commission. That is a much more serious inference than a general proposition about whether someone is being helpful or not helpful. It goes directly to his conduct as a witness. I would invite the Attorney to do the right thing and withdraw.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Conroy, you have spoken. In relation to your matter, Senator Conroy, where you mention matters of the last sitting session, that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this particular point of order. So I will dismiss that out of hand. The matter that Senator Colbeck has raised has been dealt with and there is no further action required there. What I heard from what Senator Brandis said—and I take what you are saying about context, Senator Wong and Senator Conroy—about him being an unhelpful witness—and I am not saying they were the exact words—I have discussed this matter with the Clerk in the moments I have had. We cannot find anything that is unparliamentary in that.

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

It is a reflection.

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

Order, Senator Conroy. So I will now leave this in the hands of the Attorney-General, because with the noise in the chamber it is very difficult to hear the exact context—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is the law officer of the land.

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

Order, Senator Collins—of how this matter was portrayed. Senator Brandis, if you believe there is anything that was unparliamentary, I will invite you to address that issue; otherwise, we will move on. I am happy to go back and review whatever transcript and whatever audio visual I can, and if there is anything that I determine then that is unparliamentary I am very happy to come back to the chamber. I am happy, Senator Wong or Senator Conroy, if you wish to make a response, but that is how I see it at the moment.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Okay. Attorney-General, is there anything you wish to add?

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

Just gutless!

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

Order, Senator Conroy.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I do not understand you to have ruled that the word 'unhelpful' is unparliamentary.

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

Correct.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not consider it to be unparliamentary. I do make that observation and I stick by it.

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

Thank you, but I will add for clarity that it is quite clear in Odgers and the standing orders that it is not necessarily just the word that it is used, it is the context. What I am saying is that I cannot determine the context because I did not hear the entire context of what was said.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I would ask you to talk with the Clerk about listening to the audio and to consider the reflection in the context of the term about the action at the royal commission.

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

I have indicated I will do that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I request that you do that, Mr President.

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

I am going to do that, request or not. Can we move on in an orderly manner.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to a submission from counsel to Ms Jackson, which says that the commission's legal team 'initially foreshadowed a thematic approach to hearings involving Ms Jackson. The initial plan, however, was not adhered to.' Is the Attorney-General aware of any other plans agreed to between the commission and witnesses, or did Ms Jackson get special treatment?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may finish the sentence I was in the middle of when answering the primary question, Mr Shorten, who did not approach the royal commission for the purpose of helping the royal commission as Ms Jackson did, was nevertheless afforded the courtesy through his legal representatives of being given advance notice of the documents on which he was going to be questioned. So the suggestion that Ms Jackson was given some sort of special treatment that was not vouchsafed to others who approached the royal commission, including Mr Shorten himself—

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

Pause the clock.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I again rise on a point of order on relevance. The issue I have asked about is not whether documents were supplied but whether a thematic approach to hearings involving Ms Jackson was given and an initial plan was provided. That is the question and the Attorney-General should go to that question.

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

Senator Cameron, the second part of your question was did she receive any favourable treatment. The minister has answered that directly.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: with respect, the question was 'Is the Attorney-General aware of any other plans agreed between the commission and witnesses or did Ms Jackson get special treatment'—in relation to plans, not documents. He has not answered the question, with respect, Mr President.

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

I do not believe there is a point of order.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, you seem to think that for a witness to be interviewed before they give evidence is unusual. You seem to think that for a witness to be given an idea of the topics that will be covered in their examination before the royal commission is unorthodox. That is not the case—

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

Pause the clock.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I again raise a point of order on relevance. I did not go to the issue of whether a witness was interviewed—I clearly went to the issue of whether Ms Jackson got special treatment by a plan being prepared. That was the question. The Attorney-General is studiously avoiding that question.

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

I did rule earlier that the part of the question about special treatment the Attorney-General answered. As has been ruled by Presidents past as well as me, a minister can enhance the answer. The minister has been doing that.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The treatment of Ms Jackson was utterly orthodox, utterly usual, so, Senator, the answer to your question is plainly no. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer again to a submission from counsel for Mr Jackson, which says:

This change in approach gave rise to a degree of unfairness in relation to Ms Jackson. This was recognised by the Commissioner …

Why did Commissioner Heydon intervene on Ms Jackson's behalf when she complained they were not sticking to the plan? Why did he stop questioning that was not to her liking?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I am not familiar with that part of the transcript but I can assure you that it is at the heart of the function of any judicial officer, any judge or any person conducting an inquiry at which evidence is being induced from witnesses to ensure that the witness is fairly treated. I am sure that, as he has been throughout the conduct of this royal commission, Mr Heydon, who is one of the most experienced judges in Australia, was absolutely scrupulous in discharging his duty to ensure—

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

Pause the clock.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I was asking why Commissioner Heydon intervened. That is the substance of this—Commissioner Heydon intervening and giving special treatment to a witness. The Attorney-General should deal with that part of the question.

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

The Attorney-General did indicate that he was not familiar with that portion of the transcript up-front. The Attorney-General has 17 seconds in which to complete his answer.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, even you will understand this: judges, judicial officers and royal commissioners conducting proceedings at which witnesses give evidence always intervene to ensure that the witness is fairly treated by counsel. That is an elemental judicial function. (Time expired)