The Victorian government dismisses calls for a cost-benefit analysis of a Bay West development as the state’s second container port
By Anna Game-Lopata | June 12, 2012
The Victorian government has dismissed opposition calls for a cost-benefit analysis of a Bay West development over the Port of Hastings as the state’s second container port.
Minister Dennis Napthine
today hit back at his shadow counterpart Tim Pallas arguing concerns raised about the Port of Hastings option for Victoria are “nothing but a cheap attempt to grab a headline”.
“This is laughable
from an opposition who failed to address Victoria’s port capacity concerns when
it had
its time in Government.”
“Hastings has long been identified as the best location for a second major port,” Minister Dennis Napthine tells SupplyChain Review.
“The area has an abundance of land that was specially zoned for future port development way back during the time of the Bolte Government.
“It recently had the support of the Victorian Labor Party and former Minister for Ports, who also supported the Transport Ammendment Act (Port of Hastings) through parliament last year, I might add.”
“Mr Pallas has turned his back on the development of the Port of Hastings, once again doing a double back-flip when it comes to addressing Victoria’s growing freight demands.”
“Aside from the land, Hastings is already a commercial operating port,” Dr Napthine adds.
“It is a natural deep water port with a certified depth greater than 14m so it can accommodate the next generation of container ships to trade with Australia. By comparison Bay West would
require significant dredging and development to reach the same capacity.
But according to Pallas, “A LeadWest study prepared by AECOM says Hastings might present major transport access challenges and might increase traffic congestion on the West Gate corridor.
“There are hurdles around providing a standard access rail gauge to the (Hastings) port,” last week’s opposition statement says.
Quoting an article published in the Financial Review in April, the Pallas statement also argues leading industry groups the Victorian Freight and Logistics Council (VFLC) and the Property Council of australia support consideration of a Bay West option.
VFLC CEO Rose Elphick denies
her now defunct organisation
specifically supported either of the two options at the time of Mathew Dunckley’s article.
“I said any port decision needs to look at the whole supply chain cost, and landside costs tend to be the greatest,” Elphick says.
“This was taken as a vote of support for the Bay West option over the Port of Hastings, which it wasn’t. We need to look carefully at all the options.”
The Property Council of Australia concurs, pointing out at the time of the article, its position was that all the issues, including cost and efficiency must be taken into consideration before a decision be made about where the second container port should be.
“We are still in the process of working through the issues, including transport access, congestion and jobs,” a spokesperson says.
Dennis Napthine argues the Port of Hastings has good transport links through the Westernport Highway corridor.
While Victoria’s existing ports such as Geelong and Portland are based in the west, Hastings is strategically located near Melbourne’s rapidly expanding south eastern suburbs.
“Large eastern shopping complexes such as Chadstone generate a lot of demand for containerised goods,” Napthine says.
While Napthine concedes a Western Bay port development isn’t off the cards, it should be considered as the natural third option catering for container freight in the next fifty years.
“The government recently announced the $1.2 billion expansion of port of Melbourne to resolve Victoria’s short to mid-term freight requirements but development of a second container port needs to happen now,” he says.
“This is why the government has moved on Hastings and expects the port to be operational in 10-15 years.”