Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to revelations today that lawyers working for the royal commission personally coached the disgraced Kathy Jackson about the issues on which she would be examined. Does the Prime Minister believe that this treatment is consistent with the terms of reference given to the royal commission, determined by the government? Will the Prime Minister take any action?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At last, Mr Speaker, he manages to get questions into the right form! The claim that the royal commission—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The claim that the royal commission has somehow gone soft on Kathy Jackson is entirely false. It is entirely false. Let me quote. In his submission to the royal commission, counsel assisting identified the allegations against Jackson, including a series of irregular payments, and he submitted that the allegations against Kathy Jackson reveal 'breaches of union rules, arrangements designed to circumvent the law', 'poor governance' and 'lack of transparency', and he said this 'can only be to the detriment of its members'. He concluded that these 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 of arrangements.

…   …   …

This is no model for a modern or effective union.

Plainly, there was no going soft on anyone, no kid-glove treatment of anyone. What we have seen from this royal commission is a relentless pursuit of union corruption, a relentless pursuit of rorts, rackets and rip-offs wherever they are to be found and a relentless determination to ensure that we have honest, clean workplaces and we have honest, clean unions.

Members opposite cannot help themselves. They simply cannot help defending rorts, rackets and rip-offs. There is not a dodgy union official that they are not trying to defend, except this one—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Watson on a point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on direct relevance. He is the one who has been defending Kathy Jackson.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. That is a frivolous point of order. The member for Watson will not abuse standing orders in that fashion.

Mr Champion interjecting—

The member for Wakefield is warned.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply make the point that this is a royal commission which is determined to get to the bottom of union corruption. This is a royal commission which is without fear or favour, which has exposed rorts, rackets and rip-offs wherever they have occurred. And the fact that the royal commission has been prepared to go at anyone, including some people who in a different context have been whistleblowers, shows that this is a royal commission which should be supported. This is a royal commission which is determined to do the right thing by the workers of Australia. Why won't the Leader of the Opposition get behind it? Why won't he back it? Why isn't he in favour of honest unionism? (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I call the member for Flynn—no, the member for Gorton does not have the call. The member for Watson knows that was a frivolous point of order. We have had a number of them creeping in. I need to say to members that, if there is a continuation of this, I will be very strongly minded to adopt a practice of former Speaker Harry Jenkins and other Speakers in the past who have made decisions on points of order very quickly or, in some instances—as you are devoted to the practice, as I know, Member for Watson—refused to hear points of order.