Mr TUCKEY (5:09 PM) —You can wonder how, after 13 years of a previous Labor government, of which the member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris) was a minister and under which Australia ended, as a government, an additional $90,000 million in debt, he can stand up here and say, `It doesn't really matter if something is too expensive as long as it is only about a cent a kilo.' That is absolute rubbish; that is sending the Australian nation down the tube as they so deliberately tried to do in the way they managed this country—spend the money; don't worry about the problems; just borrow it and leave it to the kids who do not vote to pay off some time in the future.

It is the greatest amount of rubbish to put the argument that the cost does not matter. It is the greatest amount of rubbish to say, `We had an inquiry and no-one would come along to give evidence.' If you were in the business of importing things at that time under the Labor government and you gave evidence to the committee about some of the truths of the situation, what happened to your containers? They either never got off the wharf, they got dropped in the ocean or they were snatched up or pilfered. That is why they would not come; the people were terrified. And the member for Shortland says that he is ashamed to be an Australian when he sees dogs taken down to the waterfront. Has he ever asked those people why they thought they needed dogs? They needed dogs because they were likely to be physically attacked or shot. And that was the standard of performance down there.

The reality of the facts is that 400 people who had only minimum training have over a period of time been doing the job of 2,000 workers—1,400 full-time workers and 600 part-time workers. Who were the 600 part-time workers? The people who had been paid $400 million by the previous Labor government to be redundant. They were paid the money and they came back as casual workers. You can put any sort of rhetoric you like up in this place but you cannot escape the facts.

Let me put another myth to death. By far the greatest value of farm production in Australia leaves this country by container. When you start to look at volumes, what do we send out in bulk? We send out grain. Look at the statistics and see what that represents in terms of agricultural production. Do we bundle up all the horticulture and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? Do we bundle up all the meat and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? Do we bundle up all the wool and send it down a conveyor belt into the ship? No, we do not. I do not have the exact figures, but I would say that the ratio of container to bulk would be two or three to one in terms of export value of commodities of agriculture out of this country. What do we get for a tonne of wheat? A couple of hundred dollars.

And let us remember how that industry worked not so long ago when 16 people turned up to watch a ship being automatically loaded when none of them were needed. Some of my constituents raised this issue. They say that things are much better now. I say, `Yes, you have got only three people you do not need now and you used to have 16.' That battle was fought out some time ago. And please remember that in those days they used to stop the whole conveyor system for about half an hour so that they could have a 10-minute smoko. There is all this argument that it does not matter if it costs a little more—it is only dollars that make the difference between an Australian exporter getting a contract and somebody from another country getting the contract, not the thousands of dollars that you want to build into this argument.

But I have made the point in this place before that it is only 10 per cent of the problem. The Australian wharfies have so disenchanted the world shipping trade that all of the most committed and the most competitive will not come to Australia; they will not be seen dead here. I gave the example the other day in this place of Hardie's fibrolite pipes in my state closing down because they could not compete on the export market where the Asian subsidiaries had the orders. They could do so by the hard work of their own employees but when it came to shipping costs the ships that were prepared to come to Australia wanted double.

Of course, their Asian subsidiaries could not understand it. They said, `We'll get shipping company so-and-so to come down and do it. They'll charge you half of that and we can meet our orders and make a profit.' They got onto shipping company so-and-so and it said, `We don't go to Australia. Why do you think we're competitive?' That is $500 a container that we are paying to pay the tithe to pay the ships that will come here. That is what we are paying: $500 a container. You check the container rate for California to Tokyo and check the container rate for Australia to Tokyo and you will find our price is double.

Mr Peter Morris —You don't know.

Mr TUCKEY —We do know: it is double. The reality is that we are paying that for bulk cargoes too. They simply will not have the companies that would do it cheapest—

Mr Peter Morris —On a point order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr TUCKEY —You have not got a point of order. It would be frivolous.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid) —Order!

Mr Peter Morris —This is not for you. You just sit down.

Mr TUCKEY —I have sat down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the member for Shortland have a point of order?

Mr Peter Morris —Yes. I am asking: is it in order for him to make that assertion when his minister has been asked those questions on the Notice Paper and declines to answer?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order.

Mr Peter Morris —I am asking your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Shortland was heard in silence during his contribution. I ask for the same privilege for the member for O'Connor.

Mr TUCKEY —I have made an undertaking to speak for 10 minutes so a few more of you blokes could get a chance; now I will speak for 20.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will speak on the matter before the chair through the chair.

Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me repeat what I have just said to you: the Australian waterfront has been so costly and so unreliable that every shipping company that comes here turns around and says, `We'll just charge you double.' The statistics are that Australia has approximately two per cent of world shipping freight and 23 per cent of the industrial action. Do not tell me these shipping companies do not charge accordingly—and they charge it on bulk freights and they further disadvantage workers in Australia. Every time an Australian exporter loses a contract on internationally competitive prices, Australian workers lose jobs. Every time they put the freight rate up and every time we have this little bit extra that comes through the inefficiencies of container handling, some working wife pays more at the supermarket. Of course it cannot be avoided and of course it is ridiculous to argue that it is just a little bit too dear, just a little bit too expensive, just a little bit too unreliable, just a little bit too dishonest. Of course no government can say that that is appropriate for the economy of its country.

We are no longer servicing the world with sailing clippers. We are no longer in a position where it was always easier to make it in Australia than get it from somewhere else. If you want to get some woollen jumpers knitted today, you can dial in a computer code to an overseas knitting company and they will start knitting them on your order, and they will be coming out here the next day. How can Australians be competitive and get economies of scale when in fact they cannot compete? The examples have been given. The business that a cement manufacturer lost to New Zealand is just one example, and on what? On port charges and freight rates. New Zealand gets the highly competitive shipping companies going there now because they guarantee them speedy turnaround.

Let us get back to this so-called conspiracy. There are two things in the same place in the Workplace Relations Act: one says you cannot be sacked because you are in a union and the other says you cannot be sacked because you are not in a union. When it comes to conspiracy theories and when it comes to court cases, I wonder if there is going to be a counterclaim that says the Australian Labor Party conspired with John Coombs and the MUA to stop non-union workers having a job.

Mr Kerr —If you want to take the action, feel free.

Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I will feel free. I hope they can hire you as the lawyer because I would win—and I have no legal training. You are so dumb.

Mr Kerr interjecting—

Mr TUCKEY —The reality is that this is the same principle. Why was it necessary for a group of Australians, wanting to create some job opportunities and wanting to give some people some relatively unsophisticated training, to even contemplate leaving the country to do it?

Mr Kerr interjecting—

Mr TUCKEY —Dopey chap! Go outside and say that! The realities are that they did it because it was impossible to do it within Australia because a mob of gangsters called the MUA was going to prevent it. The intelligence of a person who says that any Australian employer would pay air fares, overseas accommodation et cetera for the privilege of breaking the law! He would have to have as much brains in his head as he has hair on top of it.

The reality is that they turned around and did it because at the time it seemed the only opportunity, and the proof positive of that was what happened when the next step was taken and they used Webb Dock for that training. Were they allowed to just go down to Webb Dock and train on some underutilised cranes? No, they had to actually bring the people in by sea. They had to give them the protection of security guards with dogs—and we saw why.

Let me say something else about redundancies and jobs: this dispute is a lot more about the job of John Coombs and the protection of his winery and the job of Paddy Crumlin, whom they have sent over to Western Australia to stiffen up the local troops—they would not rely on some local spokesman in Western Australia, they had to have Paddy Crumlin. When he came here and he had his suit on—not his television gear—he also had two Mont Blanc pens in his pocket. Who paid for that? Some working Australians. The reality of the MUA is that, if you want to work on the waterfront, you have to pay a tithe. You are not entitled to go there and work unless you have paid money to the MUA; you have to buy a job, and I thought that went out when you were buying things.

Let us talk about the law. It is funny how the MUA and, in the past, some other trade unions used to see the law as something you used if it was in your favour but if it was not in your favour you ignored it. This time they thought it might be appropriate to use the law. But, of course, they did not stop there. They went around the countryside blockading roads and denying other people their right to earn a living: owner-driver truckies and people who had stuff stranded on the waterfront. They blockaded the road, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) went down there and they encouraged these people to blockade those roads. So one day you want the protection of the law and the courts and the next to you want to thumb your nose at the laws of Australia.

They talk about it being a shame because some dogs were there. I am ashamed that there are still Australians who believe that they have a prior right to stop other law-abiding citizens driving down the road. The great pity of it is that, by the smirks I am getting from the shadow minister at the table, he does not understand that. He does not understand that there are 18 million Australians and there are 2,000 or 3,000 members of the MUA and apparently the 18 million are second-class citizens. That is the reality. No, don't you tell me that it is appropriate to stop people on the road. You go and try it somewhere else because you are in dispute with someone. We do have courts. The unions have been there; they have had a pyrrhic victory. Actually, I think the High Court decision was quite remarkable and was given considerably tongue in cheek, and we will see what the outcome of that is. But the reality is that you want to use the courts and you want to defy the law, and you want to do both at the same time. As members of parliament, it is disgraceful that these people think this is appropriate.

Their idea of protest is, `It is all right if I think it is all right,' but if other people have an opposite point of view and they would like to protest and they want to blockade, as they did the Premier of New South Wales, they think it is dreadful. I thought it was dreadful. I also think blockading other roads is dreadful. I understand that we have got a law that says that a road is a common place and everybody can use it, but they get up here and they whinge about dogs and they whinge about security guards, yet when I talked to the farmers they said to me, `We are still thinking of going through that blockade but we have got problems because—'

Mr Kerr —What about those trucks around Parliament House?

Mr TUCKEY —I did not approve.

Mr Kerr interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison.

Mr TUCKEY —And that was wrong, was it? You had better get consistent. The reality is that nobody was stopped from coming into Parliament House. But I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when they were stopped from going into parliament house, and that was when a mob of BLF goons stopped members of parliament getting into the Western Australian parliament. And it was all over a myth. They reckoned that the end of the earth was coming. The laws they were protesting about had passed and nobody noticed the difference.

The reality is that all of these things have happened. In my last couple of minutes, let us get back to the reality. The reality is that the most competitive shipping companies in the world treat Australia as a war zone. They tax us accordingly with their prices.

Mr Kerr —A war zone?

Mr TUCKEY —Yes, and it is published in the papers and well understood. They charge us freight rates that are double what they charge in other parts of the world. Why? Because of the intransigence and the impossible requirements that Australian wharfies put on them. As one shipowner said to me, `In a war zone we might lose a ship from time to time, but in Australia we never know when we are going to get them back, at $20,000 a day.'

It is this opposition that are egging on foreign unions to refuse to unload Australian product. They are very self-satisfied about it. That is nice and Australian too. I say that those countries should be retaliated against if their governments do not realise that whatever disputes happen in Australia are Australia's business, and those companies should ensure that our trade with them is as open as it should be. They should unload that ship in America, and the fact that American citizens are refusing to do so should be condemned by the opposition. They won't. As I said, they are totally smug about it. They think, `We will teach you a lesson. Our 3,000 Australians have more rights than all the people that have produced that beef and all the meatworkers that have killed it and all the other people that have obtained employment from that particular process.' They do not want them to have their jobs if it means that the last bastion of union dominance is about to be at risk. These are the facts about the way these people carry on. The facts are there. Four hundred people with a minimum of training were doing what 1,400 had been doing.

Dr Lawrence interjecting—

Mr TUCKEY —You should not even open your mouth in this place until you have got through your perjury case.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor should direct his remarks through the chair.

Dr Lawrence interjecting—

Mr TUCKEY —It was all right for you to sit here a minute ago and demean Scanlon and everybody else. You see, you have got a few little problems yourself.

Mr Holding interjecting—

Mr TUCKEY —You can come outside and tell me that. We are about the same age. The reality is that these people are defending the indefensible, and it is absolute rubbish for these people to stand up and tell this parliament that it may be all right because it is not all that expensive per kilo. The Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) told us the other day that the excessive cost to the Australian waterfront is $100 million a year. That is what happens when you multiply all those kilos of wool and all those kilos of other freight by the number of cents that they want to continue to put as the basis for their argument. It is outrageous. The government is right, and I support its legislation.