FOR two full years - until the Newcastle Herald obtained relevant documentation in 2016 - the NSW Coalition government repeatedly denied that its port privatisations included a confidential set of arrangements designed to protect the new owners of Port Botany from a rival container terminal in Newcastle.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Since their confirmation, the contractual handcuffs on Newcastle have been examined in a range of forums - in the media, in parliament, and in the courts, where the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission set out to prove that the privatisations were "inherently anti-competitive" and "of significance for the Australian economy".
Despite the ensuing national debate, and various political promises to do something about the situation, little, if anything, has changed.
IN THE NEWS:
- Piper tables port bill, slams 'straightjacket' on Hunter economyCrash Investigation Unit called in to examine cause of police car crash
- Brother of NSW Deputy Premier remains behind bars over drug raid charges
- 'I want sex': prisoner pleads guilty to attack on guard
- Nelson Bay star set to debut for Australia at rugby union World Cup
Now, however, a single private member's bill of fewer than 200 words from Lake Macquarie Independent MP Greg Piper has thrown down the gauntlet to his fellow parliamentarians; "a simple bill with a simple intent", as Mr Piper described it in the Legislative Assembly yesterday.
The "simple" but crucial sentence is: "From the date on which this Act commences, a reimbursement provision of the Port of Newcastle Port Commitment Deed has no legal effect."
Botany's protection came from a 2013 deed requiring the state to compensate it for competition, with a 2014 deed requiring Newcastle to "make good" the state.
Greg Cameron - who guided the original container terminal proposal when it was BHP's - is not the only observer to question whether the parliament could legally approve something (the deeds) hidden from it at the time.
But regardless of their status - and regardless of fine print that seems to require Port Botany to prove it had lost business to Newcastle before being compensated - the deeds have clearly acted as a disincentive to a Newcastle container terminal.
Mr Piper's direct action has also thrown a harsh spotlight on Labor, which could have produced a similar Bill at any time, but has not.
NSW Ports has loudly opposed a Newcastle terminal (while saying one would fail anyway) and its Botany operations sit within state and federal electorates held by the ALP.
Actions, in this instance, may speak louder than words. Indeed, National Party MPs have been some of Newcastle's biggest supporters.
If the major parties have any pretence to fairness, they will pass the Piper Bill, and allow competition to prosper.
ISSUE: 39,729
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.
