Jul-Aug 2008

Cloak & Dagger: the secret plans emerge

Sandline industrial mercenaries, SAS commandos, Canberra conspiracies, Victorian Government prison shields and body guard, a phalanx of lawyers, shelf companies and cowboy operators, farmers in suits, a mysterious junk bond king with a penchant for Mao memorabilia, and one desperate man, once merchant banker now stevedoring boss, Chris Corrigan.

Secret War Plan

The full war plan for the docks remains secret. But a brief prepared for the Prime Minister in April, 1997 and leaked to parliament in July outlines the gameplan.

The 'Waterfront Strategy' brief distributed to the PM, the ministers for transport and Industrial Relations and their advisors Greg Bonder and Peter Wilson in April, 1997 clearly states that the objectives were 'removal of MUA/ACTU control over the waterfront and therefore its use as a political/industrial weapon' and "To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Government's industrial relations and transport reforms, which will have a flow on effect into other sectors of industry'. It also purports to aim at making the waterfront 'cost effective'.

The brief advocates the 'interventionist approach' which the PM agreed to in writing as early as April last year. In his letter of April 21, 1997, which has also been leaked to parliament, he calls on the key ministers Reith and Sharp to 'proceed expeditiously to establish a contingency planning group'. Copies of the PM's letter, were also sent to the treasurer and the minister for finance.

The interventionist approach is defined as 'active involvement by the Commonwealth in the stevedoring industry: "The most likely scenario would involve using an element of the Government's maritime reform agenda (eg ANL), or an event arising out of the application of the WRA (Waterfront Reform Agenda) (eg. the start up of a non union stevedore or direct intervention the Commonwealth against illegal industrial action) to bring about a national MUA stoppage."

The ultimate aim is also entirely unambiguous: "The stevedores would use this opportunity to sack their existing workforce and restart their operations with a new (non union) workforce, perhaps with some former employees who might be selectively re-employed."

Under a sub heading 'Triggers' the strategy is outlined in more detail:

"The use of a maritime issue would make it easier to sack stevedores for striking over an issue which was not directly relevant to their own employment. There are three maritime and shipping issues which could cause a strike: The sale or wind up of ANL (the Australian shipping line), the abolition of cabotage and the award simplification process, including the abolition of the Seamen's Engagement system."

The report then recognises the success of the union's public relations and media strategy on ships of shame: "Cabotage has been cleverly manipulated by the MUA using "Ships of Shame" and the spectre of oil on beaches" .

It then suggests which possible triggers would be least likely to attract sympathy from the general public.

Key to the strategy was to catch the MUA by surprise: "To this end it may be quite appropriate to keep the unions wondering whether the Government would settle for an evolutionary approach."

Under the heading 'Public Relations' the strategy identifies the need to manipulate public opinion : "Our research suggests that the general public does not yet appreciate the need for major reform of the waterfront. It is important that this be turned around before a major dispute."

The waterfront strategy brief also stresses the need "to arrange for users (such as the NFF, small business groups etc) to step up their public criticism of the waterfront". The strategy also sets out to manipulate the Productivity Commission, which reports on crane rates and benchmarks, recommending: "Work on waterfront issues being undertaken by the Productivity Commission to be brought forward and co-ordinated to complement the work of the team."

The strategy document ends with the recommendation that the PM approves the allocation of an initial budget of $2 million to set up and operate the team (to prepare for the implementation of the interventionist strategy) and that a procedure be established for the rapid approval of additional funds as required.

Other documents and internal memos tabled in Parliament in June clearly state that Patrick supported "an externally induced disruption sufficient to enable it to terminate its entire workforce" as the least risky option. However P&O, for legal, not moral reasons, argued that a "big bang was not the way forward."

The documents reveal that Patrick was, as early as April last year, considering both corporate restructuring to offload its unionised workforce and wholesale termination of MUA labour. At the time it favoured the latter option.

Reith's chief advisor Darren Gillespie reported Patrick was already looking to the Government to help provoke a dispute as an excuse for the sackings. It was also looking at developing a replacement workforce, most likely recruited from overseas.

The leaked joint submission to cabinet by Minister for Workplace Relations Peter Reith and former Transport Minister John Sharp, entailed government assistance to companies including the introduction of foreign labour and tugs, approval of visas and accommodation for foreign employees and financial support for the companies.

The diabolical plot involved 'significant public expenditure.' Once hatched it was just a matter of putting it into action...

War on the Waterfront articles

This page: http://mua.org.au/war/cloak.html
Last Modified: Tuesday, 15-Nov-2005 19:31:58 EST

Site proudly designed and engineered by Social Change Online