Opposition stokes Hastings fires
Victorian Opposition leader Matthew Guy has refused to fly the white flag over plans to develop a second container terminal at the Port of Hastings on the Mornington Peninsula. A Hastings terminal was a cornerstone of the former Baillieu/Napthine Liberal Government but has since been put on hold with the new Labor Government focusing on leasing (ie privatising) the Port of Melbourne.
Indeed new ports minister Luke Donellan said it would require “the wisdom of Solomon” to determine where a future container terminal should be located, suggesting Hastings may lose out to a ‘Bay West’ option. But in recent comments, Mr Guy was adamant a Hastings development should proceed. “It won’t have the nails in the coffin — my view is the state needs a second container port and it might not need it tomorrow, but we need to plan for it,” Mr Guy told News Corp.
“We are going to need a second port ... cities of our size around the world have two or three container ports. It certainly is not dead and buried.”
The Opposition leader also has been critical of a compensation clause in the Port of Melbourne sale deal that would take effect should a competitor port be established.
A spokesperson for Minister Donnellan told Lloyd’s List Australia a second container port would be developed “at the right time, in line with demand”.
“Infrastructure Victoria will provide independent advice to Government on the most appropriate site for a second container port, including assessing locations at Hastings and Bay West,” the spokesperson said.
“The compensation regime is designed to recognise the investment of the leaseholder in international container capacity at the Port of Melbourne. “
The spokesperson said no compensation would apply if the government develops a complementary second port without detracting from international container capacity at Port of Melbourne.
“There is absolutely no link between the lease transaction and dredging activities,” she said.
“Any dredging activities must comply with all relevant environmental regulations.”
She said the Victorian and Commonwealth Government retain responsibility for regulating port safety, security and environmental functions under the sale deal.
Container Weight Declarations – Changes to Australian Law
Discussions have commenced between the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), shipping lines, shippers, freight forwarders and transport operators to consider the operational challenges in Australia to meet the new Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention requirements for the verification and declaration of export container mass weights.
From 1 July 2016, a container will not be allowed to be loaded onto a ship unless a verified actual gross mass of the container is provided by the shipper in advance, and the shipping documentation states the method used for that verification. Delays could occur at the ship-shore interface if incorrect declarations are made, and shippers will bear the resulting costs.
The primary rationale of the IMO SOLAS amendment is to ensure that a verified gross weight for every container is communicated in shipping documents sufficiently in advance of loading to enable preparation of the ship’s stowage plan.
The lack of reliable advance notification of container weights was critical to the MSC Napoli incident in January 2007, where an investigation into the floundering of the vessel revealed that 1 in 10 containers had actual weight far in excess of that declared.
Early indications are that the Pre-Receival Advice (PRA) will be the method for delivering the verified weight to the stevedores, for on-forwarding to the shipping lines. Shippers’ Letters of Instruction will also need to capture the new declaration requirements.
Internationally (and nationally) two methods for determining accurate weight declarations are being considered:
a. Verified container gross weight (container weighbridge evidence); b.Calculating the weight of the goods (and associated dunnage, etc.), and adding the container TARE weight to arrive at the verified gross container weight.
Brokers/Freight forwarders have raised concerns about the responsibility for the container’s gross verified weight being potentially transferred from exporters to third parties (such as brokers, forwarders or transport companies) due to ambiguity over what party was classed as the shipper. The Australian Peak Shippers Association has highlighted the importance of consistent terminology for defining a shipper, along with clarity in the mandatory requirements.
AMSA accepted that amendments to Marine Orders 42 and 44, need to reflect agreed outcomes. Additionally, declarations of verified container weights will be periodically audited as part of AMSA’s Port State Control regime.
CTAA expects that these changes to shipping law in Australia will have flow-on effects to the Container Weight Declaration obligations under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL). There will need to be consistency between these two sets of laws.
Changes announced for Asian free trade deal
Analysts have welcomed agreement on a protocol change in the ASEAN – Australia – New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) with a view to making it more “business-friendly”.
The first protocol removes some information requirements deemed unnecessary while avoiding changes to preferential access arrangements.
Most specifically, the certificate no longer requires the free on board (FOB) value of the consignment to appear unless origin qualification is based on the regional value content of the good.
The first protocol comes into force for New Zealand and nine of the 12 AANZFTA parties on October 1, 2015 and the remaining two parties (Cambodia and Indonesia) are expected to implement it by January 1, 2016.
The ten parties implementing the protocol on October 1 have said they will accept either the original certificate of origin or the changed version by March 31 next year.
Melbourne-based lawyer Andrew Hudson, a partner with Gadens Law firm, said he was quite “excited” on the issue as industry has been encouraging Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for change in this area.
“The changes to the form of the CoO will be a welcome relief to many of those trading in goods affected by the AANZFTA who did not want to disclose the price they paid for the goods to those to whom they were selling the goods.
“That information plus the detail of the exporter or producer on the CoO would allow a purchaser to sideline the trader and buy the goods direct.
“After all the ‘free on board price is not relevant to the issue of the origin of the goods but it was included in the form of CoO at the insistence of the ASEAN parties and it has taken years of negotiation to make the change,” Mr Hudson said.
“While this shows that there is generally a process to amend items set out in an FTA, it is far better for industry and Government to work to get a form of CoO which does not need to be amended.”
Mr Hudson said later FTAs such as KAFTA, JAEPA and ChAFTA didn’t require FOB value to be disclosed.
“The real issues are the identity of the exporter/producer (the certifier) and the basis on which origin is claimed.
“Keeping to those criteria is part of the process to facilitate the issue and use of CoOs.
“Still other issues are whether a CoO is really needed at all and, if so, who needs to provide it – the parties involved or a third party verifier?”
Steve Morris of the Customs Brokers & Forwarders Council of Australia also has welcomed the changes.
“Any change to certificates of origin to make them more business friendly is always welcome,” Mr Morris told Lloyd’s List Australia.
“In relation to many bilateral and multilateral trade agreements there are differences in requirements relating to certificates of origin particularly as to manner and form as well as what will be deemed as goods the produce or manufacture of the respective country in terms of the origin”.
Industry, particularly in relation to international trade, seeks uniformity and consistency. For traders and their service providers, when clearing goods across borders under trade agreements at respectively lower rates, need certainty as regulators, particularly in the Australian context, require a high level of compliance to achieve those usually lower rates of duty. So as to the Protocol one can only think it will be beneficial,” Mr Morris said.
According to New Zealand Customs, AANZFTA is a regional trade deal including the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Australia and New Zealand. AANZFTA came into force in 2010 for Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Myanmar, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, and subsequently included Laos and Cambodia in 2011 and Indonesia in 2012. According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AANZFTA is the first time Australia and New Zealand have been involved jointly in negotiating an FTA with third countries.
“It is the first time ASEAN has embarked on FTA negotiations covering all sectors including goods, services, investment and intellectual property simultaneously,” DFAT has said.
“This makes it the most comprehensive trade agreement that ASEAN has ever negotiated.”
Perth Freight Link – a local’s viewpoint
Controversy around the Perth Freight Link has become highly emotive for local citizens and a huge political football for the government. This article states that community surveys indicate a whopping 95% support a rail link. Surely this indicates that 95% are opposed to a road link?
The map of the Perth Freight Link in the article conveniently finishes on the south side of the Stirling Bridge and ignores the massive congestion in the tiny strip of Tydeman Road between Beach Road and Stirling Highway on the north side of the bridge. This strip is the feeder for all cargo coming out of North Quay.
This strip is less than a kilometre long and has up to 1000 trucks a day feeding into it from Northport Terminal and Berth 11 and 12 gates as well as carrying commuter traffic. Add to this a rail level crossing on Tydeman Road and four sets of traffic lights and you have traffic chaos. Most days it is chaotic with trucks trying to change lanes to get to the Stirling Bridge but when the road is closed for a train crossing it is even worse. To solve this almost insurmountable problem given the current amount of the road traffic is a daunting task. To consider an increase in cargo movements through this route is even more implausible.
Equally the rail link from North Fremantle has its problems in as much as it has to share the passenger rail line over the rail bridge and pass through new residential areas in South Fremantle. Containers can only be single stacked on these trains because of the height limitation of the electrification wires for the passenger service. The Inner Harbour as an ongoing container terminal is doomed. Even at its current capacity it is choking the roads. Any attempt to increase capacity would be a disaster.
Fifteen years ago we had the opportunity for a privately funded shipping terminal at James Point in the Outer Harbour - at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. The government of the day rejected this proposal for whatever political reasons. This proposal had excellent container freight corridors to the big depots in Kewdale and Welshpool and at the same time would remove the livestock trade from the Inner Harbour.
Not only that, the government walked away from a massive, multi-million dollar real estate windfall with the opportunity to sell off all the North Quay harbour frontage and beachside land as highly valuable real estate. The only sensible option to allow realistic growth of trade through the Port of Fremantle is to develop the Outer Harbour option. Victoria Quay and the Inner Harbour could remain as an excellent terminal for cruise ships, ferries and visiting warships and a much more attractive harbour for the residents of Fremantle.
Surely some sense could be shown by investing taxpayers’ dollars more responsibly on a true vision for the future for the Port of Fremantle?
Middle East to examine the future post-sanctions direction for Iran's ports
The door is opening for Iran to re-join global and regional container trades as sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the US and European Union could be lifted as early as next year. Potential roadmaps for this important country of nearly 80 million will be debated at the TOC Events Middle East conference this December.
At TOC Middle East 2015, two senior Iranian port executives have already confirmed to discuss the way forward for the country's maritime trade. With news that sanctions look to be lifted, the past 3 months alone have seen a number of global carriers – including Evergreen, HMM, Hanjin, Yang Ming, UASC, CSCL, and CMA-CGM – return, adding Bandar Abbas to several Asia-Middle East port rotations.
In the port sector, DP World is reportedly interested in talking to Iranian authorities about developing one or more terminals in the country, and Contship Italia Spa has signed a strategic Memorandum of Understanding with Sina Port & Marine Company (SPMCO), with a view to exchanging experience and know-how on various aspects of port operations and logistics management.
Inland Rail—a new rail connection between Melbourne and Brisbane
Infrastructure has a critical role in lifting our nation's wealth and prosperity. “…Inland Rail offers a strategic opportunity to invest in a nationally significant asset that is likely to serve Australia for the next 150 years.” said Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Warren Truss MP, 2015.
Australia's freight task is set to experience significant growth over the next several decades. The current national infrastructure network cannot support this projected growth, with increasing pressure on already congested roads through Sydney and increasing use of heavy trucks such as B-doubles and, potentially, B-triples along the Hume-Pacific and Newell Corridors.
Inland Rail provides a high performance and direct interstate freight rail corridor between two of Australia's largest cities—Melbourne and Brisbane, while also linking south-east Queensland with Perth and Adelaide. By connecting Brisbane more directly with Adelaide and Perth (via Parkes), Inland Rail would deliver immediate interoperability with the high performance east-west trans-continental line.
Inland Rail will address the growing freight task by helping to move freight transport off the congested road network. It is a step-change in the productivity of freight services—a shift that will benefit the whole nation for the next century by creating new jobs and helping increase our standard of living. It provides a reliable road-competitive solution to the freight task and enables the commercial and social benefits of rail to be leveraged to meet Australia's long-term freight challenge.
Inland Rail is an investment in strategic infrastructure for the future, providing capacity to serve the east coast freight market for the century. Inland Rail will be an important contributor to national productivity by reducing train operating costs and improving service standards.
