Mr McCLELLAND (2:50 PM) —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and concerns the Federal Court case of the Employment Advocate and the CFMEU and Williamson, known as the Abigroup case. Minister, can you confirm that the Federal Court found that the two men called by the government as witnesses lied to fabricate a case against the CFMEU? Did the court not then dismiss the case and order the two government witnesses to personally pay the legal costs of the CFMEU and its official? Minister, can you confirm that your predecessor, Peter Reith—on advice from Jonathan Hamberger, the Employment Advocate and Mr Reith's former political adviser—granted these two men an indemnity after they had been found by the court to have lied? Minister, can you explain how taking the unprecedented step of paying almost $100,000 of taxpayers' money for fabricated evidence against a trade union is consistent with your notion of the rule of law?

Mr ABBOTT (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) —I thank the member for Barton for his question. I appreciate that this is an important topic and that he has an understandable interest in it, so let me give him a little bit of background. In February 2000, the Employment Advocate commenced a prosecution, as I understand it, against a union, a union organiser and a company because of what it regarded as breaches of the freedom of association principles of the act. In November 2000, as I understand it, that action was dismissed by the Federal Court. Shortly thereafter, the union in question proceeded against the Employment Advocate and the witnesses used by the Employment Advocate for costs. In December 2000, the then minister for workplace relations provided an indemnity to the witnesses in question on the not unreasonable grounds that people who give testimony on behalf of the Commonwealth should be supported. I also point out by way of background that the Employment Advocate has brought some 19 prosecutions of this type and this is the only one that has not succeeded. I have carefully considered the issues which have been raised by the member for Barton and I am quite confident that both the Office of the Employment Advocate and the former minister have acted with perfect propriety in this matter.

The SPEAKER —The member for Brisbane should be more worried about pre-emptive strikes from the chair right now.