![GROWTH: A container terminal at the Port of Newcastle has compelling economic advantages. GROWTH: A container terminal at the Port of Newcastle has compelling economic advantages.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/eAHvuQGs6RUXufjt9tidNR/2202d540-3347-4ee6-82cd-114735b6bea4.jpg/r0_189_4992_3262_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Last week in NSW parliament, Member for Newcastle, Tim Crakanthorp, asked Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian, “What is the cap on numbers at the Port of Newcastle?”
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It is a question the Baird government does not want to answer.
The government is being asked to confirm that when container movements at the Port of Newcastle exceed a “cap on numbers” of 30,000 per year, the government charges a fee of $100 per container. This fee is paid to NSW Ports, the Port Botany leaseholder, as compensation. Compensation is paid for loss of business due to competition. Since the fee makes a container terminal unviable, one will not be built and the government will avoid the compensation bill.
Mr Crakanthorp asked two further questions:
- When did the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) stop applying to the Government in respect to the operation of the Port of Newcastle?
- Do the Port Commitment Deeds include a fee on container throughput at Newcastle Port under certain specified conditions?
The CCA applies to the NSW government for all businesses the government operates like a private company. Sydney Port Corporation and Newcastle Port Corporation were such businesses until they were privatised on April 12, 2013 and April 30, 2014, respectively. The NSW government can claim exemption from the CCA. When leasing a public asset, the government may no longer be carrying on a business for the purpose of the CCA. The question is, did the government claim exemption for confidential ports leasing arrangements?
It defies reality for the cap and fee to conform to the CCA because they are patently anti-competitive. Enforcing the CCA is the role of the ACCC. However, the ACCC claims it knew nothing about restrictions in the arrangements until seeing an article in the Newcastle Herald on May 11, 2014. Only a court can determine whether the CCA applied to the ports leases.
Leasing arrangements for the three ports – Newcastle, Botany and Kembla – are included in “Port Commitment Deeds”. Mr Crakanthorp properly asks the Treasurer to disclose that the Deeds include the Newcastle port cap and fee. After much questioning, the government failed to provide any information.
A container terminal at the Port of Newcastle has compelling economic advantages. First and foremost, it cuts out the need to truck containers between northern NSW and Port Botany via western Sydney. Secondly, it enables northern NSW to participate in world trade because virtually all trade, except for bulk commodities like coal, is conducted using containers carried on ships. This will do more to facilitate growth throughout northern NSW than any other single measure.
Thirdly, a container terminal will justify building a rail freight bypass of Newcastle and Sydney. Such a line is commercially viable if its base load is containers for the Sydney market. Freight is removed from the Newcastle line, enabling proper transport planning and improved passenger services.
With renewed talk of a very fast train, the rail freight bypass corridor would easily be shared. Container trucks would be removed from Sydney’s roads and all of Sydney rail capacity used for passengers.
The government’s answers to Mr Crakanthorp’s questions will have profound implications, not just for Newcastle and northern NSW, but for the entire state.