Hastings Port

With Victoria going to the polls on Saturday, Jenny Warfe and Dr Matthew Mitchell present compelling evidence the real reason for the East West Link is not road congestion but a superfluous new port project. (Article dated 27 November 2014 republished from Independent Australia)

Victorian Premier Denis Napthine’s figurehead multi-billion dollar road project, Melbourne’s East West Link, does not make financial sense — at least, not in the way it is being presented to the public.

Even the Victorian Government’s top planners believe a rail tunnel would be a better investment. So why is Napthine pushing it so hard?  It seems the East West Link is part of a much larger plan — a plan based on unsustainable growth and dubious business models.

The East West Link is part of the Napthine government’s 2013 Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan. This plan also includes the Port of Hastings development.

The plan proposes (page 17) to

‘… secure Victoria’s position as the leading State for freight and logistics.’

As part of this plan, it is expected (page 29) that the Port of Hastings

‘… once fully developed, will be the largest container port in Australia’.

The Hastings port and the East West Link projects are linked by Premier Napthine in relation to port services in his video update on the Freight Plan launch, when he says:

“The plan encompasses two of the largest investments undertaken in the state's history: the expansion of the Port of Hastings and the development of East West Link. And these are vital for the future of our state.”

The relationship of the Port and the East West road network are shown in the Freight Plan as follows:

The Plan argues that the proposal to develop both the Port and the East West Link is sustainable. However, strong evidence suggests the modelling the Plan is based on is not accurate.

For example, The Age on November 11 reported an independent study that suggested the East West Link will cost $17.8 billion:

‘A report by 10 leading transport planners and financial analysts from three Melbourne universities concludes the East West price tag will be "comparable" with the Wonthaggi desalination plant.’

But that is just cost for the road — added to that is the cost of the port development. A development that questioned by former Toll Holdings boss Paul Little (and still largest private shareholder) who was last year quoted as saying the Hastings Port option:

"… would not deliver the best outcome for Victoria, would be a financial disaster for the freight industry... the proposal is deeply flawed.

"The high cost of building a standard-gauge rail link to Hasting and the construction of suitable freeway access would be excessive and difficult, if not impossible, to justify."

A further concern in this regard is that it appears that ports in general are based on a somewhat vulnerable business model. Two of the companies involved in operating Australia’s ports ? Patrick - Asciano and DP World Australia ? almost went broke after the Global Financial Crisis, with headlines such as:

‘Price collapse makes Asciano shares virtually worthless’

And they seem to have struggled to recover since, with reports that Asciano suffered a bottom-line loss of $244 million in 2008-09, quadrupling in 2009-10 to $976 million. This ‘successful’ growth business also received $18 million from taxpayers in 2014, yet still laid off 30% of its workforce.

For its part, DP World made losses of $74 million in 2011, $32 million in 2012 and $68 million in 2013.

And these losses are on top of the fact that the most expensive port expansion projects are paid for by Victorian taxpayers — such as Channel Deepening, $1 billion; Webb Dock expansion, $1.5 billion and so on. Of course, if there is a major oil spill or contamination by exotic organisms ? something that, according to Dr Tim Lowe, costs the planet over $10 billion annually ? then costs may escalate substantially. Not to mention the pollution from both trucks and ships, which burn a particularly dirty form of fuel in our bays of coasts, producing pollution equivalent to 350,000 cars.

Finally in regard to sustainability, the Government’s proposal seems to take no account of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with shipping. Only the U.S., China, Russia, India and Japan emit more carbon dioxide than the world’s shipping fleet.

Taking into account that the Port of Hastings model depends on a massive growth projection of imports, the “sustainability” claim looks dodgier and dodgier.

The Port of Melbourne currently handles around 2.5 million containers a year. The Port of Hastings proposal anticipates handling nine million containers a year, with double the number of truck trips on Melbourne roads — thus the need for the East West Link.

This projection by the Government’s plan is also not consistent with expected population growth. The plan anticipates a 360% increase in container traffic, yet Victoria’s population growth over the same period (to 2060) is only projected to be a 62% increase.

A strange irony is that the East West Link may yet be funded by the sale of the Port of Melbourne.

So what should happen?

Well, without the Port of Hastings proposal, the case for the East West Link road seems much weaker than it already is. It is really doubtful that such a port is necessary, or that it will reach the expected freight targets.

Every state in Australia has similar plans for ports; there is no shortage of ports and port growth plans.

The problem seems to arise from the lack of a national port strategy. It may make far more sense to develop ports in the north of Australia and then rail freight containers down from there.

This is the proposal put forward by the Port Philip Conservation Council in which they suggest (PPCC Policy Statement 17):

• Loading and unloading larger ships at Hub port Singapore, or existing deep water ports (Darwin, Fremantle, Brisbane etc.), which are all much closer to Australia’s present major Asian trading partners.
• Running smaller fuel-efficient ships to and from those ports.
• Much more interstate rail and also ‘dry ports’ (Brisbane-Melbourne rail link, Parkes Inland Port etc), and
• Port operators being required to have a national approach in siting assets, and in investing in Australia-wide rail and joint port operations, noting that Tasmania is a special case, but that its scale will continue to be very small.

But will any of our politicians, state or federal, explore these options?

Will they even consider the issues above? Or will they instead take the advice of the IPA on how to deal with people who raise environmental concerns?

That is:

“Let’s call them fruitcakes. Let’s call them nut—nutters …. let’s absolutely go for them.”

Let us assume that with goodwill something can, and will, be done. Then if as a nation we are going to pursue never-ending growth ? what George Monbiot calls ‘the insatiable god’ ? we need to consider the role of state government competition.

Note, such competition is not unique to ports. Water is another area where states compete with each other. In both cases state competition complicates already difficult issues.

In the case of ports, however, this has led to our overabundance of ports, all seeking to expand their traffic. Indeed, this is discussed specifically in relation to Queensland in a Centre of Policy Development 2013 report called Too Many Ports in a Storm.

So, progress on our problem with ports may require similar thinking to that applied to our river systems. And perhaps the only way to eliminate state competition is through major Constitutional reform.

Such reform has been argued for by Professor George Williams in regard to river systems.

Until we overcome the self-centred ambitions of our state governments, the negative effects can be expected to continue. These are increasingly impacting us in a variety of ways ranging from global climate change to our local roads and, finally, to our individual health.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Environment and community groups from across Australia are calling on Federal Environmental Minister Greg Hunt to save the fragile environment of Westernport Bay amid ongoing concerns over the Coalition’s One Stop Shop policy.

The massive Hastings port expansion plan and associated land transport corridors will not only devastate the internationally important Ramsar-listed wetlands of Westernport, but also impact on the liveability of Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs, the groups say.

“The Napthine Government wants to push through its expansion plans under the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 – the same fast-track process that approved the East West Link project, which is about to face a Supreme Court challenge,” said Ariane Wilkinson, lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia.

“The only way Victorians can prevent the destruction of this protected wetland, home to many threatened species, is by appealing for Greg Hunt to intervene under federal environmental laws. Yet even this avenue of last resort is under threat from the Federal Government’s One Stop Shop policy.

“If the One Stop Shop policy is implemented, Minister Hunt can simply hand over his powers for this project to the Victorian Government.

“The Victorian Government has a clear conflict of interest in this project as both the proponents and regulators.

“The One Stop Shop policy will remove the last vestiges of federal oversight.

“We have no confidence that Victoria’s major projects legislation will provide adequate protection for the nationally important environment in Westernport.

“The Victorian Government has a clear conflict of interest in this project as both the proponents and regulators.

“And just like with the East West Link project, the road and rail connections to an expanded port will be assessed by this major projects legislation, which will be a real concern to communities along the transport corridor,” Ms Wilkinson concluded.

Simon Branigan, Marine and Coastal Projects Officer at Victorian National Parks Association, commented:

“The port expansion will not only impact the home of our iconic fairy penguins, but also the homes and lives of residents in Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs.”

“According to the State Government’s Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan a rail transport corridor will need to be built from Dandenong and run through the middle of suburbs such as Caulfield, Toorak and Richmond, potentially requiring compulsory acquisitions.

“All this for a project that is an environmental disaster in waiting.

“Oil spill modelling shows that even a relatively minor oil spill would spread quickly throughout the bay, threatening fish, penguins and the beautiful beaches between Somers and Flinders.

“Under the One Stop Shop, the approval of the Hastings port expansion will be a fait accompli.

“We are urging Minister Hunt to stay true to his promise that if there is clear conflict of interest in major developments, he will not hand over his powers under federal environment laws.”

Jeff Nottle, chairman and spokesperson for Preserve Western Port Action Group, warned the project threatens the local tourism industry and jobs.

“The Victorian Major Projects Act means a big rubber stamp hangs over this project, unless Minister Hunt retains his powers to assess it.”

“The project threatens our $600 million tourism industry and the 5000 jobs that rely on that industry. It has already impacted whales in the area due to underwater drilling. Fewer whales mean less income for tourism operators.

“This is Greg Hunt’s electorate. He can’t turn his back on the livelihood of his constituents or the importance of the Ramsar wetland.

“Greg Hunt must intervene immediately to stop the Victorian Government ruining the future of Westernport."

The environment groups calling on federal environment minister Greg Hunt to intervene are the Victorian National Parks Association, Environmental Justice Australia, Preserve Western Port Action Group, Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council, Blue Wedges Coalition and French Island Port Stoppers.

For comment

Ariane Wilkinson, lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia –
0403 364 771
Simon Branigan, Victorian National Parks Association – 0409 087 278
Jeff Nottle, Chairman at Preserve Western Port Action Group – 0419 158 232

Download media backgrounders

Oil spill impacts on Westernport bird species
Oil spill impacts on Westernport seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh

Download reports

Impact of proposed Port of Hastings expansion on the birdlife of Western Port

Impact of proposed Port of Hastings expansion on seagrass, mangroves and salt marsh

Speakers: Jenny Warfe (Blue Wedges); Jenny Lowe (BirdLife); Dave Minton, Port of Hastings Development Authorities; Simon Brannigan, VNPA Marine spokesperson; Hugh Kirkman, Marine Environmental Consultant. Starts 5.45, Tuesday 15 April, Hastings Community Hub, 1973 Frankston-Flinders Rd, Hastings (booking essential) Westernport Bay is a site of international significance for aquatic birds and right on the doorstep of Melbourne. Its extensive intertidal mudflats, seagrass meadows, saltmarshes and mangroves support more than 10,000 migratory
shorebirds and 10,000 waterfowl. Yet despite its incredible importance as a bird sanctuary the Napthine Government plans to drastically expand Port of Hastings within the bay into an international container port - oil spills, dredging, land clearing, and thousands of more ships a year could put Westernport’s birdlife and habitats at risk.

This interesting and informative seminar will explore the potential impacts the port expansion could have on seagrass, saltmarsh and mangroves as well as on the bay’s many bird species.

Speakers include

• A representative from Birdlife Australia.

• Dr Hugh Kirkman, environmental consultant and seagrass expert.

• Representatives from the Victorian National Parks Association, Blue Wedges Coalition and the Westernport & Peninsula Protection Council.

WHERE: Hastings Community Hub, 1973 Frankston- Flinders Rd, Hastings (Google Map
Reference http://goo.gl/TVUtML).

WHEN: Tuesday 15 April.

TIME:Doors open 5.45pm, 6.10 start, finishes 7.30pm.

RSVP:This is a free event, tea and coffee provided, but bookings are essential through Eventbrite – vnpa.eventbrite.com.au where you are asked to click on a free booking to attend button.

The Victorian Government is proposing a large development at the Port of Hastings. This will result in a six lane highway with a freight train line in the middle where the current Westernport Highway is. The development will have significant effects on Westernport Bay and the fish nurseries there.

Our processes for social decision-making are failing us.

In modern Australia there is a “Widespread anxiety about the state of politics” and “the only appropriate response is cynicism” (MacKay 1993 pg 176). The problems are not just local but it is only locally that we can hope to make a difference.

A necessary part of the solution is increasing local control through a shift in the division of power. But to overcome cynicism it needs to be a genuine shift. In Australia we have learned a unique lesson in this regard. In 1900 the federal government was given specific powers with the intention of improving the material circumstances of everyone. These powers related to such sensible responsibilities as: taxation, postage and communication, banking, immigration, external affairs, pensions and matrimonial matters (Clark, 1987). The residual powers: education, health, railways remained with the states (Clark 1987, pg 188). But over 100 years we have seen state powers gradually usurped by federal government due to financial dependence. This dependence arose from a series of gradual changes in the both the size of federal revenues (from around 5% of GDP in the early 1900’s to 30% of GDP by the 1980’s) and proportion (until 1942 income taxes were collected by the states). The evidence of federal power over the states extends to current attempts to effectively take control of education curriculums through the Gonski reforms (I am not arguing whether that is a good or bad thing, I am just pointing out that power seems to lie with those who control the purse strings). As noted by Andrew and Goldsmith (1998) local government has also experienced “an increased use of appointed as distinct from elected bodies as well as increased state or central control of local government activities and finance”. In which case, legitimising local councils constitutionally and strengthening their authority (through referendum) is unlikely to empower citizens locally if those same councils are heavily dependent on federal or state funding (although some believe this could help). The issue of declining democratic representation as a result of appointed authorities is also significant.

One important concern to address is the perceived low level of competence of local leaders and councils. Let me put forward the idea that local leaders are probably no more or less competent than state or federal leaders, in many cases local leadership in councils is the pathway to parliament, with only an election in-between. Decision making at state and federal levels may seem more effective, but I suspect that this is because they have meaningful budgets and real decision making power, thus they are subject to heavy lobbying by various and conflicting organised groups. It is likely this lobbying more than anything else that leads to a higher, but still inadequate, level of informed and conciliatory decision making by state and federal representatives. A shift of power to the local level would presumably lead to a commensurate increase in lobbying and a corresponding increase in the quality of local decisions.

This does not imply that we need abandon the federal system, but rather that we return much power and money to more localised governments. It is only at the local level that the needs of community can be really understood and addressed. And this only if they have both the authority and resources to do so. Furthermore, without major planned reforms this will inevitably occur anyway – as our paralysed state and federal governments become less and less effective at managing our deteriorating circumstances. There is a failure of leadership at the existing state and federal levels. The only strategy they have is to continue development and growth – this will only make the problems worse. The end of the growth based system is now well in sight, and it is not pretty.

In short, we need to face up to the fact that society has changed substantially over the past 100 years, however, our legal and legislative system has not. It is failing and this is reflected in the evident cynicism and lack of confidence as noted above. Unlike the late 1800’s, Australia is now firmly integrated into a globalised trade and political system. So rather than directing our attention towards real or imagined forces that are beyond the ability of citizens and our current governments, to control we need to act locally to help ourselves. And in fact, we are already seeing this occur in many communities across the globe. (eg: local communities banning GMO’s, creating their own currencies and local defence). In case you doubt the ability of strong communities to deal with crises there is good evidence that they can survive even the most dire calamities, as was demonstrated by Cuba’s resilience when the USSR collapsed (for a summary see here). In fact, Cuba’s response demonstrated a case study for division of powers for emergencies: federal responsibility for health, education and food rationing and local responsibility for production and distribution. But Cubans apparently had faith and trust in their government. Is that true of Australians today?

However, there is an answer - communities can take back control. Through a process of local referendums communities can create a new system of regional governments. These governments can replace both state government and local government by combining two or three council areas into a new state. The newly created regional states can then join the Australian federation under the constitutional process for adding new states.

An example of such a new state government would be the combination of Mornington Peninsula shire (LGA) with Frankston city into a new state government called the State of Mornington Peninsula. The new state would have about 270,000 people –slightly less than the state of Victoria had when it was first formed. A proposal for the new State of Mornington Peninsula is available at 8thstate.net.

Creating the State of Mornington Peninsula would lead to immediate significant economic benefits through creation of local jobs and opportunities. Money and jobs that are currently sent to Melbourne would be re-located on the Peninsula as the State of Mornington Peninsula would have its own education department, state and road planning, transport department, courts and police force etc. The flow on effects of this would significantly boost local business and open up very attractive opportunities to the people of Mornington Peninsula State. It is expected that all state systems would be far more responsive to the needs of the people on the Peninsula than the current state services.
In fact, if this process was to conducted across Victoria it would achieve the decentralisation and revitalisation of rural communities that has been discussed and previously attempted by the Victorian State Government over recent decades (see this ABC report).

The conversion of the State of Victoria into a set of smaller regional states can be done via a state referendum. This could result in around 18-20 regional governments and in such a scenario, a coalition of Victorian Governments could supervise and manage the re-organisation of former State of Victoria assets, services and responsibilities.

The creation of one or more regionalised state governments within Victoria would give communities direct control over the natural environment in which they live. For example, communities would have complete control over the use of GMO crops and Coal Seam Gas Fracking.

Thus communities could decide for themselves whether to navigate an energy descent path earlier or later - i.e before or after potentially destroying their farm land and groundwater supplies by fracking.

However, the ability of communities to effectively organise themselves depends on the strength of those communities. Thus regardless of what happens, there is a practical and necessary action every one of us can take: that is to get involved in local community in some manner; whether it be volunteering, attending local meetings; whatever capacity suits you best. This will build social cohesion, and knowing the people in your local community better will certainly help you feel a lot more comfortable, especially in troubled times - which are imminent . We must act now.

References and Bibliography:

Andrew C and Goldsmith M, 1998 “From Local Government to Local Governance - and Beyond” 19(2) International Political Science Review.

Brown L R, 2010 “Plan B 4.0, Mobilizing to Save Civilisation”,W W Norton & Co, p 5. See also, Earth Policy Institute, Providing a Plan to Save Civilisation (Earth Policy Institute) http://www.earth-policy.org/about_epi/
viewed 30 April 2012.

Clark, M 1987 “A Short History of Australia”, Penguin.
MacKay, H 1993 “Reinventing Australia: the Mind and Mood of Australia in the 90s”, HarperCollins.

Jenny Warfe went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. It was all about business as usual, ignoring resource depletion, seeing growing the economy as the only way to provide jobs, unwilling to contemplate the ceasing of engineering population growth upwards. Here is a report.

I went to the Westernport Catchment Committee meeting yesterday 18th October 2013 to hear the PoHDA CEO Mike Lean’s presentation about the proposed Hastings Port expansion. Some of his memorable (predictable ) statements included, according to my notes:

• There are no other options
• Construction phase 2018-2025
• Will serve Victoria's trade for the next 70,80 to 100 years
• It is fundamental as a gateway for the State
• Australians overwhelmingly want their children to have jobs
• Westernport highway would be upgraded to 6 lanes with dual train track in centre
• Project would also require the metro train tunnel to be built to allow for better movement of passenger trains on the Dandenong line, freeing up space for freight trains
• Shipping lines are now moving to wider container ships and steaming slower [so much for the PoMC’s Channel Deepening rationale that the Heads must be deepened because container ships would always be getting deeper and it was uneconomic for ships to wait for tide assistance]
• Container trade is growing at 5-7% compounding annually
• Planning for a minimum of 9 million containers per annum by 2060, ramping up from 2025
• Victoria is growing at 1500 people per week [it is actually 100,000 per annum at present, 60% of which is elective immigration]
• We are many years from having an outcome in the business case
• Compared with any other Australian port, Hastings has the largest amount of port related zoned land close to a port
• If you put it in a container we will move it
• Aiming for maximum automation at the port, so that flood lighting at night is not required, so that birds won’t be disturbed – might only be a few dozen people on site [so much for jobs then.]
• There will be positive impacts as well

[et cetera]

Clearly the plan is predicated on a business as usual scenario, reliant on a doubling of the state’s population and a quadrupling of trade by mid-century and of course abundant fossil fuels to power the juggernaut.
When asked, Mr. Lean denied any knowledge of coal export through Hastings as part of the business case- although acknowledged that he had “read something about it recently.”

There was quite a bit of concern expressed in questions from the meeting and amazement at the numbers of containers, ships, trucks and trains that his “vision” would entail. .....And quite a bit of defensiveness in his replies- perhaps reverting to his former Army Lieutenant Colonel days. Prior to PoHDA, Mr. Lean was responsible for the Williamstown shipyard and the Maritime Business Unit at BAE Systems Australia working on the Air Warfare Destroyer and Landing Helicopter Dock projects.

The Mornington Peninsula has been under continuous assault from forced population growth in the face of lax environmental protection now since the time of Jeff Kennett, who made it part of 'Greater Melbourne', thus taking Victorian environmentalists 'beyond blue'. A few years ago plans to intensively industrialise Hastings on a scale previously unknown in Australia came to light. (See Candobetter has a whole site topic devoted to these.. Now the use of Hastings to export coal is being mooted.

Documents Blue Wedges obtained under Freedom of Information last year revealed that the former Brumby government’s plans for Hastings included coal exports in the business case. Given the Napthine government’s project costs and projected trade volumes released so far for an expanded Hastings are almost identical to the Brumby plan, it’s pretty likely that coal is still on the agenda.

An Exergen (power company claiming to have clean coal credentials) 2011 document obtained by Environment Victoria under FoI also builds a case for coal to be transported as slurry in a pipeline from the LaTrobe Valley to the Port of Hastings, and then treated/de-watered on site at the Port of Hastings, for export through there. (Brown coal cannot be exported in its natural state due to its high moisture content and risks of spontaneous combustion).
Exergen states that the upgraded coal would be exported to lndia, Japan, Korea and other locations in North Asia.

"What a hideous vision for Hastings – and what an appalling contribution to our planet’s Greenhouse gas emissions." (Jenny Warfe, leader of Blue Wedges campaign against Port Phillip dredging)

The Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC) is having a rally on November 9th 2pm-3.30pm Hastings Foreshore. WPPC have organized it with Environment Victoria and Quit Coal. People from Corner Inlet and 90 Mile Beach who are opposing their own coal port proposals will be travelling to the rally. Farmers who face having their excellent farms turned into a coal mine will also be present. There will be talks from VNPA and Blue Wedges too.

Start inviting your friends.

Sheila Newman will interview Jenny live 19 April between 12 midday and 1pm at 3RPP. You can listen live here. What next? Will they sell the people off as slaves? Will the remove access to our bank accounts overnight? Will they raise the cost of electricity so high that the companies take our houses to pay for them? Our Parliamentary system is beyond democratic control. Our economic system is a bad joke. Our taxes are used to pay for educational institutions which are then set up to profit private enterprise and investors and users overseas. And now, under Ted Baillieu, there is this proposal to sell Port Melbourne... (No, this is not an April fools joke.)

"It’s insulting that Spring Street might value the Port of Melbourne at only $2.4 billion (Baillieu flags state asset sales 23/3). Taxpayer shareholders recently spent around $1 billion on channel deepening and subsequent maintenance dredging to “prepare the Port for the future”. And, it’s a small fraction of the current estimate of $10 billion to develop the Port of Hastings – a project recently identified by government as urgently needed infrastructure. Taxpayers have invested in the Port of Melbourne for over a century and now we are expected to support its hand over to the private sector and then pay again to build Hastings port. It’s time to join the dots. Dumping the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings is about catering for Baillieu’s pet projects for Gippsland: export of brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas it he can find it. Topped up with Ports Minister Napthine’s proposed driverless trucks trundling up the Westernport Freeway from the Port of Hastings with assorted imports and we are approaching dystopia indeed."(Jenny Warfe, Blue Wedges) Sheila Newman will interview Jenny live on 19 April between 12 midday and 1pm at 3RPP. You can listen live here.

Sale Plan to pay for port

(Originally published March 27 2012 on 3RPP as "Sale plan to pay for port."and in Western Port News, 27 March 2012.)

March 27 2012

THE state government could sell the Port of Melbourne for $2.4 billion and four water authorities to fund five priority infrastructure projects including development of the Port of Hastings.

The other four projects are the east-west tunnel (linking the Western Ring Rd and the Eastern Freeway), rail links to Avalon airport, duplication of major freight highways, and a rail tunnel from Caulfield to Footscray.

Last financial year the port paid a dividend of $13.4 million to the government and earned an after-tax profit of $39 million.
Melbourne’s four water authorities are Melbourne Water, City West Water, South East Water (which services the peninsula) and Yarra Valley Water.

The revelation of the go­vernment’s plans for possible asset sales has already drawn criticism from disparate sources including award-winning economics and public policy commentator Ken Davidson and environmentalists.

Mr Davidson wrote on Monday that it was “silly to prioritise the port at Hastings while Australia’s number one port at Melbourne has serious problems that inhibit Victoria’s development”.

Industry groups, including the Australian Peak Shippers Association, have warned the Port of Melbourne would face major bottlenecks from 2015 onwards as it reached capacity.

This has seen the government, led by Ports Minister Denis Napthine, to promise fast-tracking of Port of Hastings development (‘New port start five years away’, The News, 31/1/12).

In January Mr Napthine and Port of Hastings Development Authority board chairman Yehudi Blacher told The News Hastings was well suited to become Victoria’s second container port within 10 to 13 years.

“Container movements are estimated to quadruple over the next 30 years and it is critical that we begin planning for this growth now,” Mr Napthine said.

But Mr Davidson says development of Hastings could wait until 2035 when Melbourne’s population was expected to be five million.
Until then, the Port of Melbourne could be improved by redeveloping the Swanson/Dynon precinct, he said.

Other suggestions have included developing Webb Dock.

The pressure on Port of Melbourne has further increased following claims by government sources, port figures and shipping and automotive industry groups that the government is set to abandon its plan to move all automotive shipping from Melbourne to the Port of Geelong.

Port of Hastings has been touted as an alternative port for exporting and importing vehicles, especially with the closure of BlueScope’s hot strip mill, which saw the Iron Monarch bringing slab steel from Port Kembla weekly.

The Iron Monarch’s last voyage of slab cargo arrived at Western Port on Tuesday 4 October and the BlueScope jetty is underutilised.
Selling the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings was about cater­ing for Premier Ted Baillieu’s pet projects for Gippsland – exporting from Western Port brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas, Blue Wedges Coalition president Jenny Warfe told The News on Monday.

Ms Warfe said it was insulting the government valued the Port of Melbourne at only $2.4 billion.

“Taxpayers recently spent about $1 billion on channel deepening and subsequent maintenance dredging to ‘prepare the port for the future’, as port authorities claimed,” she said.

“The current estimate to develop the Port of Hastings – a project recently identified by the government as urgently needed infrastructure – is $10 billion.

“Taxpayers have invested in the Port of Melbourne for more than a century and now we are expected to support its hand over to the private sector and then pay again to build Hastings port?

“It’s time to join the dots. Dumping the Port of Melbourne and developing Hastings is about the premier wanting to export from Gippsland brown coal, woodchips and coal seam gas, if he can find it.

“With massive trains hauling this cargo through our green wedges to Hastings – and Ports Minister Denis Napthine’s proposed driverless trucks trundling up the Western Port Freeway from the Port of Hastings with assorted imports – we are approaching dystopia indeed.”

The government last month introduced laws forcing the Port of Melbourne Corporation to pay an annual $75 million ‘’licence fee’’ that would increase each year with inflation and generated about $1 billion over the next decade.

The Port Licence Fee will add $8000 to $10,000 to the cost of bringing a ship into the Port of Melbourne.

The fee cuts both ways as the Victorian Farmers Federation says it will add $10 million to the cost of exporting Victorian farm produce. It has dubbed the fee a “tax on trade”.

Melbourne has the last publicly owned major port on the eastern seaboard following the Queensland government’s sale of the Port of Brisbane for $2.1 billion and a NSW government plan to privatise Port Botany.