NSW Ports, the operator of Port Botany, has written to the Hunter's state MPs disputing the need for a Newcastle container terminal and its projected economic benefits for the region.
It comes as the Port of Newcastle's campaign to establish a terminal, regarded as critical to the region's long-term economic diversification, gains momentum across the political divide, business and industry.
But its ambitions remain thwarted by 50-year agreements, known as port commitment deeds, which were entered into as part of the privatisation of Port Botany and Port Kembla by the NSW government in May 2013.
The deeds oblige the government to compensate the lessee, the NSW Ports consortium, if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle exceeds an indexed cap, which presently sits at an estimated 57,000 containers per annum.
NSW Ports's two-page letter states that a "Lack of factual evidence, inflated claims and misinformation are being used in an effort to garner support" for the Newcastle container terminal.
It argues that an automated container terminal at Newcastle would be on par with a similar facility at the Port of Melbourne, which employs 140 people.
Port of Newcastle said the statement failed to recoginise the project's economic catalyst effect. Once built and operating, it estimates the project would generate more than 15,000 direct and indirect jobs across the region.
The NSW Ports letter also says that NSW is an import-dominant state, meaning that only four full containers are exported for every ten that arrive at the state's ports.
"If landed in Newcastle, these containers would need to be trucked or railed to their final destination, notably the population centres of Sydney and West Sydney some 200km away," the letter said.
"The Port of Newcastle plans make no allowance for the billions of dollars required to enhance road and rail infrastructure. The terminal they propose - capable of handling 2 million containers per annum - would generate up to 5400 additional truck movements each day in the area and on the road connections to Sydney. This would place significant additional pressure on already busy local roads as well as the M1 between Newcastle and Sydney."
The letter concludes by inviting MPs to meet with NSW Ports chief executive Marika Calfas to discuss the organisation's concerns about the Newcastle proposal.
Every Hunter-based state and federal MP told the Herald in June they supported the establishment of a Newcastle container terminal.
Read more:
"Harbour Lives with Scott Bevan - Part One": Entering the Port.
"Harbour Lives with Scott Bevan - Part Two: From the 'Dog Beach' to Scratchleys.
"Harbour Lives with Scott Bevan" - Part Three: Along Honeysuckle.
Newcastle MP Crakanthorp said he was shocked to receive NSW Ports' "outrageous" letter.
"The only misinformation being peddled here is the contents of their letter. They must be very worried if they are resorting to such tactics," he said.
"How dare a company from Sydney try and dictate what Newcastle can and can't do. This project has broad support across the state and it appears that only the operator of the monopoly container terminal and the Liberal Government are worried about competition from the Port of Newcastle."
Port chief executive Craig Carmody said on Wednesday night that Port Botany and Ms Calfas had gone to extreme lengths to tell Hunter MPs "how our local economy runs from Sydney."
"There has been enough written about the ongoing bottlenecks and inefficiencies of Port Botany and this is a desperate act which indicates just how unfair and anti-competitive this deal was and how afraid of competition Port Botany really are," he said.
"You don't need to take our word for it, Port of Newcastle is routinely approached by many customers and extended networks of Port Botany desperate for an alternative to the congested Sydney container terminal."
"It seems that Port Botany and their CEO argue there is no need for a container terminal in Newcastle but at the same time use the protection of a dodgy deal that protects them from competition until 2065. If Port Botany and Ms Calfas don't believe the project will work, why won't they waive the $100 per container penalty tax and let market forces decide?"
A NSW Ports spokesman said it was important that the facts about container terminal operations and container supply chains in NSW were shared with the people and businesses of Newcastle and the Hunter, including the additional cost of the proposed Newcastle container terminal to the State's supply chains.
"No allowance has been made for the billions of taxpayers' dollars that would be needed to improve Newcastle's connectivity to support the proposed development, which may also have negative implications for a future fast rail commuter line between Newcastle and Sydney," he said.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on the Newcastle Herald website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. Sign up for a subscription here.
