Mr Tanner asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:

(1) Further to his answers to questions Nos. 2214 (Hansard , 20 October 1997, page 9340) and 2415 (Hansard , 17 November 1997, page 10607) concerning allegations of produce left rotting on wharves because of industrial action, is he able to provide any evidence to support the allegations.

(2) Is he able to identify public statements by port users, producer organisations, port authorities or stevedoring companies referring to occurrences.

(3) Will he arrange a confidential briefing for the Shadow Minister for Transport in which evidence is provided with an undertaking that it would not be disclosed to another person.

Mr Howard (Prime Minister) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) and (2) I refer the honourable member to my answers to questions Nos. 2214 on 20 October 1997 and 2415 on 17 November 1997 (which provide a full answer to these questions). In addition, the honourable member may be aware that ABC television news on 21 April 1998 reported the experience of an agricultural producer whose citrus exports were rotting on Melbourne's East Swanson dock as a result of the activities—illegal pickets in this case, supported by the Labor Opposition—of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).

The honourable member may also be aware of press reports on 28 May 1998 of expected spoilage of cargo on the container vessel Columbus Canada as a result of delays caused by industrial action by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in the US in support of the MUA. The ILWU refused to unload cargo from the Columbus Canada which had been loaded by non-union labour in Australia and, after being kept waiting for 16 days outside the Port of Los Angeles, the ship was forced to sail back to New Zealand to be reloaded by union labour before returning to North America to deliver its cargo. The Government understands that some of the vessel's cargo of wheat gluten, meat and dairy products has perished and that some will perish or be downgraded in quality.

(3) As the honourable member is very well aware, the Government does not have the permission of affected companies to publicly outline or otherwise disclose such cases. These companies have suffered, and continue to suffer, under inefficient waterfront practices and have asked that their cases not be disclosed, either publicly or privately.

Also, in providing information about the impact of the recent industrial disruption on the waterfront, many businesses have indicated either directly or to their employer associations a reluctance to be named, for fear of reprisals. Such reports only serve to harden my resolve to respect their wishes that their cases not be disclosed.