Mr TANNER(3.05 p.m.) —As I speak, upwards of 30 men are filing into the Burke Room at the Travelodge at Tullamarine airport to receive an initial briefing with respect to a trip to Dubai where they will be for roughly three months to train as stevedoring workers to be deployed on the Australian waterfront in lieu of existing waterfront workers. They will fly out tonight at 8.45 on Emirates flight EK69. The remainder of this force will be flying out on December 7, and some from Perth will be flying out on 10 December.

These men are industrial mercenaries who have been recruited through the Australian defence forces, and they will be trained in a variety of stevedoring activities to be deployed as an alternative labour force, as a strike breaking labour force, as a scab labour force on the waterfront to attack the Maritime Union of Australia and the members of that union.

The two key players in this are a Mr Michael Wells and a Mr Peter Kilfoyle, who are both directors of two companies that were formed in October this year—Fynwest Pty Ltd and the International Port Services Training Group Pty Ltd. It is worth noting that Fynwest Pty Ltd, which is the employer of the industrial mercenaries, is a $20 shelf company that was bought in October from Thrifty Shelf Company.

The ads that we have seen bandied around today by the Minister for Defence, Mr McLachlan, were placed in the Army magazine on 30 October and 13 November this year. This advertisement called for trade specialists in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane—which happen to be the four main container ports in Australia. It claimed to provide an excellent career opportunity and competitive salary and the job entailed the licensed use of various heavy equipment, electrical/electronic diagnostics and a range of other activities that are clearly stevedoring related.

We have the Australian workplace agreement that these people will be working to. That agreement provides for three classifications in clause 6—mobile plant, straddle fork driver—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! I am loath to interrupt the honourable member, but he has been speaking now for over two minutes and I am failing yet to see how he is going to tie this in with the failure of the transport reform agenda.

Mr TANNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am dealing with the failure of the government's transport reform agenda with respect to waterfront reform, which is part of the transport system. This is clearly a serious manifestation of the failure of the government's agenda without any shadow of a doubt. There are some very serious questions that the government has to answer about this and has failed to answer today. It is provided that these industrial mercenaries can be deployed—

Mr Hockey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Waterfront reform is an industrial relations issue and is unrelated to the matter of public importance before the House. I ask you to bring him back to—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney. I have already questioned the honourable member for Melbourne, who has indicated that he is going to relate this to the transport reform agenda. I invite the honourable member to continue.

Mr TANNER —The industrial mercenaries will be paid between $46,000 and $60,000 per annum over three years. While they are in Dubai, they will stay at the Arenco Golden Sands Resort. They will be there for three months. They will return on 28 February next year when they will be engaged in three weeks training in New South Wales and then train between 120 and 180 other people who are also intended to be deployed on the waterfront. They have been told to describe themselves as emergency reservists, if there is any public examination of what they are doing. They are going to be paid in lump sums—first on 28 February and then in June—into bank accounts. It is worth noting that Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, of which it is part, are recorded in recent US State Department literature as having no unions, no strikes and no labour rights of any equivalence to Australia.

Let us look at Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle. Mr Wells is a former commando and Vietnam veteran who was a captain in the army. He runs an organisation called Multi-placement Recruiting which advertises `excellent discipline, not Rambo/Secret Service image.'

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for North Sydney on what I hope is not a trivial point of order.

Mr Hockey —No, it is not a trivial point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is talking about matters relating to individuals who may or may not be employed in defence forces, which is absolutely unrelated to the matter of public importance before the House. I ask you to bring him back to—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney. I do invite the honourable member for Melbourne to come specifically to the point about transport reform.

Mr TANNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is about reform of the Australian waterfront, which is part of our transport system, and a scam that is being undertaken on the waterfront that is getting under way today, which is directly relevant to Australia's transport system.

Mr Wells advertises services that indicate that he and his company can maintain up-to-date training and contact regarding overseas methods employed by kidnappers and terrorists, first-class weapons handling of numerous types, use of concealed batons and unarmed combat techniques.

Mr Kilfoyle, who is a recently discharged bankrupt and former ex-SAS commando, has skills advertised on his behalf, including electronic surveillance, private investigation, training in small arms, close quarters personal control, including unarmed combat techniques, restraints, holds and blocks, use of a baton, use of handcuffs and various methods of searching offenders. This is reminiscent of the `New Guard' and the `White Army' in the 1920s and 1930s in Australia. This is reminiscent of the Sandline mercenaries in Bougainville.

Are these the skills that are needed to improve the productivity on Australia's waterfront? Is this the government's approach to industrial relations—bring in the heavies, bring in the spies and bring in the military types to boot the crap out of all the people on the waterfront? Is this how they will sort out the wharfies—electronic surveillance and people who are obviously trained in violence?

The question that this government has to answer is: who is behind Peter Kilfoyle and Michael Wells? Where are the millions of dollars necessary to fly people to Dubai and to pay them salaries for three years coming from? What government involvement is there? Is there any government money in this? Is there any money being laundered through other parties—for example, consultants? Is the Defence Department or the military involved and, if so, in what way? Are any serving officers involved? Why was this advertise ment run twice in the official army publication? What involvement and what knowledge do the ministers, including the Prime Minister, have?

What deals or arrangements have been made with the government of the United Arab Emirates, which, it is worth pointing out, owns the port of Dubai. The ruling family of the United Arab Emirates happens to own the company that supplies the labour. So it would be very surprising if there has been no connection at all between the government of the United Arab Emirates and the Australian government on these matters.

What private companies have been involved and what commitments have been made to those companies and who drafted a very thorough and very professionally presented Australian workplace agreement—all from a $20 company with two ex-military people not of obviously substantial means? If the government, as it has said today, denies any role in all of this, why is the advertisement published in an official army newspaper and how likely is it that private companies are going to invest millions of dollars in an escapade of this nature with no indication from the government of support or willingness to facilitate the entry of this industrial mercenary labour force onto the docks?

How likely is it that the United Arab Emirates government is going to agree to this sort of approach and to this sort of escapade in its own backyard without discussing the matter with representatives of the Australian government? How likely is it that we have fast-tracked passports and visas for up to 70 men who are answering an ad that was in the paper two weeks ago?

Mr Andrew —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not easily provoked but I do believe that the member for Melbourne is currently abusing your ruling. We have now sat through this debate for over half the time allocated to the first speaker on the MPI without direct reference to the matter related to the MPI.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Chief Government Whip. I do say to the honourable member for Melbourne that I have been listening very carefully. I have noted on about three or four occasions that you have thrown away the line of waterfront reform but you have mainly been talking about terrorism, weapons and the United Arab Emirates.

Mr Bevis —And his remarks are relevant.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I don't need your assistance. I am yet to hear you relate your argument to the transport reform agenda in Australia.

Mr TANNER —Let us talk about the consultancies that this government has had about waterfront reform: $1.3 million, most of it to Liberal Party mates and $685,000 to ACIL and to David Trebeck, formerly of the National Farmers Federation. They have refused to provide to the parliament any details about what is in that report and the other reports of Liberal Party mates and about what sort of material and activities those people have been involved in.

Stephen Webster and John Davies are former staffers of the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray. Stephen Webster is a former staffer of Andrew Peacock. Mark Textor—the infamous Mark Textor of push-polling fame—is paid $42,000. What for? What is his expertise on waterfront reform? You have a situation where the government is providing millions of dollars and refusing to say where that money is being spent, on what sorts of activities, in spite of the Senate passing a return to order motion.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) is all the time unctuously saying, `I am consulting. I am being frank with the Maritime Union. I am being reasonable. We will have another meeting.' He has met twice with them. He said that he is just being frank and constructive. He says he has no knowledge of the escapade that is under way today, yet it was advertised in the army newspaper twice.

Industrial productivity on the waterfront is improving—something that the government refuses to acknowledge. It needs to improve a bit more, but it is improving. It has gone up substantially in the last quarter. We have had a massive misinformation campaign from this government about productivity on the waterfront. We have had outrageous statements— outrageous lies—about the level of pay of many waterside workers.

We have had implications, including a press release from the former minister saying that a teenage prank of blowing up the letterbox of his former adviser on maritime affairs was in some way the work of the Maritime Union. The Prime Minister has stood in here saying that perishables have been left rotting on the waterfront by the MUA. When he is asked—twice—in questions on notice to give examples, he refuses to. John Sharp is parading around the country talking about the nick—John Sharp, the expert on the nick; the man who invented the nick. Today we have the exposure of an outrageous scam, an outrageous escapade. It is gradually coming to light. This government has to answer a variety of questions about what is going on in waterfront reform in this country. If, as the government claims, it does not know—in spite of the whole thing being advertised in one of the army's own publications—why on earth does it not know about what is going on under its nose?

This is about industrial mercenaries. It is about as outrageous and improper as it can get. This is Australia's Sandline. It is deceit and duplicity on a grand scale. You have people connected with the defence forces—ex-SAS people, ex-commandos—being used to attack workers on the waterfront. They are workers who have committed no offence; workers who are complying with the industrial relations laws of this country; workers who are not even on strike; workers who are just doing their daily work. But people are being sent across Dubai to be trained to take their places and to get in there and help get rid of them. This parliament needs to know what role the government or any of the government ministers, staff of the government ministers or people in the departments administered by those ministers have in this entire outrageous escapade.

This is a brutal assault on the perceived enemies of this government—the waterside workers. It is a bad game, a dangerous game, involving people in the military and people in the defence department. It is a clear attempt to provoke not just war on the waterfront but outright nuclear war on the waterfront. The government should immediately take stock of what is going on in its waterfront reform program and what it is actually doing. It should find out precisely what it does not know—if we can take the minister at face value today. It should repudiate these mercenaries—the Prime Minister had the opportunity to do that and he refused to do it—and it should withdraw any support that is going to this project. It should provide all details to this parliament of its involvement in this outrageous scheme, and it should convene an independent inquiry to determine precisely what sort of involvement it and any of its officers, its ministers or staffers in the offices of those ministers have in this whole business.

The episode is a deeply embarrassing scandal for this government. It is reminiscent of the sorts of things that go on in military dictatorships. If people are being taken out of the military and leaving the country in response to an advertisement in the army's official newspaper so they can be trained to be deployed as strike breakers, as job stealers and as people on the waterfront who are going to get rid of the Maritime Union of Australia, then we have on our hands a very serious situation indeed. It is something that this government has to be called to account for.

This parliament should be able to know what arrangements have been made, who is involved and who is behind Michael Wells, Peter Kilfoyle, Fynwest Pty Ltd and International Port Services Training Group Pty Ltd. It should be able to know who is putting up the money: who is paying the air fares for the travel to Dubai, who is paying the bills for the Arenco resort, and who is paying the $10 million worth of wages for three years? Who is paying all this? What is going on with waterfront reform? What involvement does the government have in this outrageous episode?