Third stevedore port terminal in Sydney `a waste' 13 December 2007 | 12:05PM
SIR
I am writing in response to the article “Third stevedore in Melbourne our preference: Pallas” ( Lloyd's List DCN news wire, November 22) comparing New South Wales to Victoria in their approach to ports.
The NSW Government seems intent on wasting $1bn when it signs the contract to build the new Port Botany terminal for the new third stevedore.
The article said Victoria's Government was “sadly disappointed” in the market's disinterest for a third Melbourne stevedore.
The Victorian Government has tried to deal with new stevedores first and failed to get a deal with anyone for the second time.
However in NSW, Sydney Ports has convinced the State Government to sign a construction contract for $1bn and look for a third stevedore next year.
Which state is the more commercially prudent? Victoria.
Sydney Ports appears to have conned the State Government into disregarding the Commission of Enquiry and getting the State Government to adopt a “we must do something” approach before establishing the commercial reality of a third stevedore.
Hence, based upon the Victorian precedent in stevedore negotiations, NSW will build a massive port terminal and have no new stevedore from whom to get any economic or financial return from the $1bn.
Why does the NSW Government seem so hell bent upon wasting our money? Is it because Sydney Ports just could not care less as it is other peoples' money?
The Government must also address the lack of appropriate road and rail infrastructure to support the current (and future) container truck and freight rail volumes as well as other port related vehicles.
The $1bn budgeted for expansion, combined with the AusLink funding, should be used to address the inadequate road and rail issue and prepare for the expected increase in container trade.
Garry Brown
Botany, NSW
