Many of the nation’s container ports face space constraints, not just in the areas for physical expansion but in realising that much port land could command exceptional prices when used for other purposes. While in the bulk trades, some Australian ports are struggling to keep pace with the queues of vessels, fuelled by Asian demand.

Although container throughput growth hasn’t been as dynamic as some other parts of the world, rates have nevertheless exceeded the projections of just a few years ago. It was only in 1997-1998 that Melbourne became the first Australian port to pass the 1m teu mark: this year the total will be over 2.2m teu.

Of the four ports under pressure, only Brisbane has real room to expand its existing footprint, thanks to the ability to reclaim more of its Fisherman Islands base from Moreton Bay in well-planned, progressive stages.

Sydney’s container trades have fully migrated to Port Botany over three decades and work has recently begun on a third major container terminal, which will add five berths and 2m teu capacity. But once that is exhausted, the New South Wales government has designated Newcastle as the state’s second international container port.

With Fremantle’s Inner Harbour also reaching capacity, Fremantle Ports is in the advanced stages of planning an offshore container terminal off the coast of Kwinana.

For Melbourne, the situation is more complex: firstly, an extension of the existing Swanson Dock will see the benefits of the current channel deepening programme maximised, and that will be followed by the re-development of Webb Dock and, eventually, a new port at Hastings, south-east of the Victorian capital. 

But a recent review of the planning timeline has already called for accelerated development, an imperative that will undoubtedly clash with community attitudes towards such major projects.

As the residents of Australia’s major port cities become ever-more conscious of urban congestion the container logistics chain is becoming demonised in the face of general ignorance of its vital role in the economy and community.

Industry knows it has a problem, but it’s scarcely able to deal with image issues when practical challenges are far more pressing.

The Victorian, New South Wales and Western Australian governments all have well-publicised plans to shift port container traffic from road to rail and these are being realised with varying degrees of success. 

But industry acknowledges these goals are both simplistic and ambitious, unless co-ordinated supply chain planning ensures the requirements of domestic and international trade are efficiently and cost-effectively met.

With port land in increasing demand – often for non-port uses – it’s doubtful how long low-value land uses such as empty container parks can be justified within or near Australian port precincts. 

But is it efficient to move container supply and demand points too far from sea terminals? Are geographically-dispersed suburban and regional container hubs simply re-locating congestion problems further afield? And can rail shuttles be made to pay their way or will government subsidies be required to accelerate modal shift?

These are the major questions industry needs to answer in the coming years.

Meanwhile, the ignorance and sins of past eras regularly return to haunt port authorities now forced to deal with pollution, contamination and environmental degradation unacceptable to modern society.

Australian bulk ports are finding the very nature of their business is now the focus of intense scrutiny, and practices and methods once regarded as safe, or at worst benign, are in need of complete overhaul if health, safety and community expectations are to be met – and the ports themselves are to be able to co-exist with their urban hinterlands.

In the most notable case, Western Australia’s Esperance Port Authority is facing a number of serious court charges after significant quantities of lead and nickel concentrates were found to have spilled or leached into the harbour and surrounds. Lead dust escaped from open rail wagons carrying concentrate from the Wiluna mine, and from gaps in the waterfront storage sheds. 

Authorities were only alerted when thousands of native birds died, leading to tests that discovered much of Esperance’s water supply was badly contaminated and children returned elevated blood lead levels.

Queensland’s Gladstone, a heavily industrialised city, nevertheless turned the spotlight on dust levels emanating from one of Australia’s biggest coal export terminals. In response the port authority has invested millions in what it claims are industry-leading environmental management techniques.

And all this as debate continues to rage over the most expeditious and efficacious ways of ensuring Australia’s burgeoning bulk exports are moved from mine and farm to port and beyond.

Should the private sector be given almost unimpeded ability to fund and develop its own rail and port facilities, with as little regulation and red tape as possible? Or is it government’s responsibility – if not obligation – to be the provider of national infrastructure and support services?

No less than Marius Kloppers, the head of the world’s largest miner, BHP Billiton, recently contrasted the success of company-driven logistics and port developments serving Western Australia’s iron ore industry with the well-publicised bottlenecks affecting coal companies on the East Coast. 

But, perhaps contradictorily, Western Australia’s ports are all still in full government control while major coal terminals in Queensland and NSW are in private hands, including one co-owned by BHP Billiton.

In order to address users’ concerns over possible price-gouging, some of those facilities are subject to regulation by competition authorities – surely a measure of industry’s own trust in itself.

While a BHP Billiton or a Rio Tinto may have the financial muscle and annual volumes to justify single-user bulk terminals, for the remainder shared facilities are all that can be justified or afforded.