Mr NEHL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the minister confirm that the ship Columbus Canada has had to sail from the United States to New Zealand to be reloaded and then return to the United States to deliver its cargo, because of union thuggery and blackmail? What message does this send to our overseas trading partners?

Mr TIM FISCHER (Trade; Deputy Prime Minister) —It is my melancholy duty to inform the House that the Columbus Canada has in fact now sailed from the west coast of the United States of America as part of a very costly transhipment of containers, which is going to put in jeopardy the jobs of exporters here in Australia—large and small. The member for Charlton and the frontbench of the Labor Party might rejoice in this, but I want to refer to the Daily Telegraph editorial today, which quite correctly gave real prominence and highlight to the other side of this equation:

In the wake of our ship of shame—

That is the only part of the editorial they got wrong. It is not our ship of shame. It is John Coombs's ship of shame. It is the MUA's ship of shame. It is Kim Beazley's ship of shame, who has in no way condemned this costly transhipment of Australian containers which are the subject of a piece of blackmail, a piece of thuggery, which you seem to rejoice in. Why have you not rejected this development?

In addition to vital Australian beef exports, in addition to wheat gluten, there is yet another container in that shipment, involving a market breakthrough for the first time to USA and Mexico by a smaller company, Lavery International, a small dairy company based in Victoria. That company had just managed to win a contract in northern America—and part of that in Mexico—after strong competition from other competitors. Loaded on that ship is gouda cheese valued at $US60,000—about $A100,000. It is now past its use-by date and is no longer suitable for the client. You have contributed to the destruction of a new export deal to northern America from Australia.

The government stands very firm in support of waterfront reform. And why wouldn't we, when you have this shocking conduct mounted against Australian exporters and agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition, the person who would have us believe that he would be a responsible Prime Minister of this country? I quote further from the Daily Telegraph editorial:

It demonstrates that the Federal Government is right to insist on waterfront reform to put an end to the corrupt practices and poor productivity of the MUA.

A union willing to undermine our export markets to maintain a closed shop must not be tolerated.

We will push on with genuine waterfront reform. We have made a number of diplomatic representations with regard to the Columbus Canada and we will stand up for our exporters.