Mr MUTCH —Thank you for your support. My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you advise the House of the current state of negotiations between the various parties on the waterfront? Just how determined is the government to reform the waterfront?

Mr REITH (Workplace Relations and Small Business) —I thank the member for Cook for his question. I actually happen to have with me an article dated 15 August 1997, the very day of the quotation from the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago in his question to the Prime Minister. It is an article in the Financial Review by Pamela Williams. In that article there is a quote from John Coombs which, quite frankly, is typical of this union. This quote is not surprising. We have heard them on many occasions. At that time, if my memory serves my right, the shipping reform group was looking at maritime issues generally. This is what Mr Coombs said in respect of one issue, namely, cabotage. He said:

`We will go all out if they cut cabotage,' said Coombs. `We will close the joint down, and I've told Sharp that, six inches from his face. I've told the Prime Minister as well.'

Since the day we were elected, the MUA has been threatening to close Australia down, and that should hardly be a surprise. They did it when Labor was in office when you attempted to sell ANL. One of the great humiliations of Labor's time in office was when the MUA forced you to cave in as usual.

We as a government have a national responsibility to ensure that in the face of industrial action all steps would be taken and would have been considered in advance to keep the ports open. We make no mistake about that. We have said it on many occasions on the public record. Are we any different from any other government? No, we are not. It is just that the difference between you and us is that we have had the guts to be prepared to introduce legislative changes and to advocate a reform in the way in which you never were prepared to when you were in office.

In respect of the current situation, it is interesting. What have the MUA done in respect of P&O? They have cut off negotiations. Why? Because P&O have taken legal redress against them in the New South Wales Supreme Court seeking appropriate relief in respect of the industrial action taken by the MUA in Adelaide and in Newcastle.

In respect of Patrick, on the advice that I have there has certainly been some negotiations this week. I am not sure where those negotiations are going. I sense from some of the reports—they are second hand—that there are some in the trade union movement who are uncertain as to whether or not they should face the reality of coming to an agreement about reform. We understand that the National Council of the MUA is meeting today. That meeting will obviously be considering their attitude to the legal proceedings to reform and all the current issues in this dispute.

In respect of the legal proceedings, I can inform the House that, whilst the MUA has been determined to get rid of the administrators, yesterday on their application to the courts to terminate the administration they actually sought an adjournment of those proceedings, and they sought an adjournment of the application to appoint a court appointed receiver. Those adjournments were through to 9 July.

In respect of discovery, which is an important aspect of the principal proceedings, discovery is due on 24 June, all other things being equal. We have said to the Commonwealth's lawyers that we must meet that deadline. That is a deadline set by the court, of course. There are thousands of pages, so I am informed, which would comprise the documents which would fall within the discovery processes, reflecting the very wide ambit of the legal claims being made by the MUA.

Our legal team have a lot of issues to look at in respect of these documents, including public interest immunity for cabinet documents and other documents—as much for this case as it is relevant to the precedents that it would create in respect of any other proceedings in the future.

From the Commonwealth's perspective, I can advise the House that we will strongly defend the claim and deny the claim. The fact of the matter is, as we have said consistently through these whole proceedings, while the rights of the parties in the judicial process are important and will be proceeded with in a proper way in respect of the judicial system, the point I make is that in the end, for the national interest, we must have reform on the Australian waterfront. What I can say to both the MUA and Patrick and to any other interested parties is that, from the government's perspective, in the end, regardless of the court proceedings, important as they are, the government's position will not change. We will continue to press for reform because we believe it is in the national interest. So what I say to the parties is that sooner or later you are going to have to face the reality of significant reform.

I say to the Labor Party that your consistent support for the MUA will be seen by the Australian public for what it is: support for a union which has not been prepared to reform. Therefore, I think it is for you an electoral liability.

Mr SPEAKER —I suggest the minister might draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr REITH —To conclude, Mr Speaker, I make this point. From the government's perspective, this is an important issue. I do not know when the legal proceedings will come to the matters being heard before the courts. I do not know when the next federal election is; that is a matter for the Prime Minister. But I do say that we will continue to campaign on waterfront reform because it is important for this country, and I say to the parties that they ought to understand that this government is not going to budge on the absolute national imperative to see an efficient waterfront.