3rd operator

Port Botany

Rumblings on the waterfront

Union opposes plans to introduce a 3rd stevedoring operator in the ports of Brisbane and Port Botany

The MUA continues to express the Union's frustration at continuing attempts by the Queensland and NSW Governments to artificially force a process of creating a 3rd terminal operator in Brisbane and Sydney.

National Secretary Paddy Crumlin together with the two branches have had dialogue with all state governments and the union has presented them with a carefully researched document on efficient ports being linked to a stable investment employment and training environment.

"NSW and Qld are dangerously out of touch with international best practice and risk damaging the hard work done in the industry to promote safe efficient and sustainable terminal operations," he said. "The particular ministers lack experience and seem immature and unable to deal with the responsibilities of their portfolio."

The union, however, remains confident that due to good relations generally further dialogue with the two Labor governments may resolve this lack of maturity.

"If their ministers don't shape up than they should be shipped out. There's enough industry policy negligence and incompetence in Canberra to go around already," said Paddy Crumlin.

The union is adamant that neither state has demonstrated an economic case for new stevedoring entrants.

"New stevedoring entrants have nothing to do with effective competition," said Paddy Crumlin. "On the contrary, the economic evidence, including the NSW Government's own Commission of Inquiry has cast doubt on the economic benefits. It's not in Australia's national interest. NSW are extracting monopoly rents to provide a revenue stream in a period of budget deficit, or to fund delayed port investment."

The MUA advocates international competition in a globalised transport and logistics market, not intra-port and inter-port competition.

Facilitating new stevedoring entrants, under anti-competitive tender arrangements to achieve political and government revenue outcomes is a recipe for industrial instability.

The waterfront workforce has taken some big hits over the past decade, but has risen off the floor to demonstrate that it has the capability to drive productivity improvement at the same time as reducing casualisation and improving the economic conditions of waterside workers.

Three enterprise bargaining rounds since the Patrick dispute have delivered gains to the stevedores and the workforce, with flow-ons to importers and exporters.


A recent Productivity Commission report argued that productivity had plateaued and costs were up. Competition in the form of a new operator at the terminals, the report argued, was the only way out.

But it's not the workers who are responsible for a labour productivity plateau over the last couple of years after dramatic improvements since 1998.

State port corporations have been slow to finalise long-term port development strategies. They have been under the pump to deliver fat dividends to governments through high port charges and low stevedoring investment due to delays and uncertainty over port development.

Not to mention corporate games such as takeover battles.

These are the key reasons for lower crane rates.

Labour productivity requires capital investment, good management, clever use of technology and innovative practices to grow.

Workers are not responsible for the so-called excessive profits of stevedoring companies.

Rates of return in most capital intensive industries tend to be higher than average, and in any case, the capital generated, when ploughed back into stevedoring investment will underpin the next cyclical wave of labour productivity improvement.

The MUA has not been given a fair hearing by the NSW or Queensland governments.

In NSW the union has put forward no less than six major submissions since 2004 -- the Submission to State Development Committee Inquiry into Port Infrastructure; Submission to Port Botany Commission of Inquiry; Submission to Minister Costa on stevedoring productivity and 3rd operator; a proposal for a Labour Plan for Sydney Ports; Submission to the NSW Infrastructure Implementation Group and Submission to the Independent Expert Panel on the 5th Berth Option.

There has been not one substantive response.

Over the same period we have had seven meetings with the NSW Government - twice with the former ports minister Costa, four times with Tripodi, once with the Premier and once with Roozendaal.

National Secretary Paddy Crumlin has played a high profile in the meetings.

In Queensland the union has met with the transport minister and with advisers to the deputy premier, as well as with the port corporation.

Not one concession has been made to the labour force.

In addition the union has participated in the processes of the ALP to ensure balanced ports policy, taking account of labour force issues; committed significant resources to Labor's re-election campaigns; worked cooperatively with other transport unions and the labor councils in NSW and Queensland; and avoided involvement in political debates, attempting to argue the merits of our position on sound public policy principles.

The union has stressed the many other factors impacting on the cost of freight other than competition such as empty containers (one in every two) needing repositioning at lower charges, the need for more labour intensive 20 foot containers due to the high density of Australian cargos of heavy metals, the higher costs of handling storing and maintaining refrigerated containers used for Australian exports of fruit and meat, the long distance and low volume (thin trade) of Australian shipping, the trade imbalance with Japan and North Asia, not to mention the liner conferencing agreements influencing shipping freight rates.

The union has consistently argued that the introduction of a new entrant is a worst case option in that it brings no new business, its viability is dependent on poaching contracts from other terminal operators, it will disaggregate volume, revenue and profit resulting in under investment and it has no influence on containers handled as a proportion of vessel capacity.

As such it cannot increase labour productivity; 

 it can only impact on labour costs: a recipe for lower productivity and industrial instability.

What governments, whether federal or state, need to do is focus policy on the entire transport and logistics chain, emphasise the land side options (wharf interface with road/rail), introduce better technologies to manage containers such as better land/space configurations; and, most importantly, involve the labour force - focus on training and skill development, career paths, innovative working arrangements, workforce flexibility and improved labour standards.

"We will fight any political initiatives to casualise our stevedoring workforce," said Paddy Crumlin. "That's not efficiency, it's only a short cut to unsafe work and cheap labour."