It’s time to revive the conspiracy case against senior figures in the Howard government over the dramatic waterfront dispute a decade ago. Documents denied by the former government will reveal a trail of illegal involvement leading directly to John Howard’s door.
Padyy Crumlin has already raised the issue informally with Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard and commissioned legal advice for a formal application to have the documents released.
The Webster Report
The key document sought by the MUA is a report commissioned for the Howard government by consultant Stephen Webster in 1997.
Dr Webster, seconded from Pratt Industries to work for then transport minister John Sharp and workplace relations minister Peter Reith, (the phone-card rorter), led a project team with a brief to provide advice on waterfront ‘reform’.
Others involved in the Webster report – which is believed to have recommended a direct confrontation with the MUA – were John Davies, David Webb, legal firms Minter Ellison and Corrs Chambers Westgarth, and BCG Media. The 82-page report was submitted to the Howard government in October 1997 and has remained confidential.
Ministerial Involvement
The MUA also wants access to two government-commissioned reports on waterfront reform by ACIL Economics involving consultant David Trebeck that the union believes will show the depth of ministerial involvement in Patrick’s plan to smash the MUA.
Josh Bornstein, a senior lawyer from firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman who represented the MUA, said the waterfront dispute was part of an evolving strategy that began with reports commissioned by the Howard government.
Bornstein says some documents, including letters, have already been leaked showing Mr Howard “approved” intervention on the docks – an intervention that was totally at odds with the Coalition’s Workplace Relations Act, and with Howard’s statements to the public.
“There are about two or three documents that are rolled gold because they lay out the whole script with strong suggestions of illegality“.
