Port of Newcastle needs Botany owner NSW Ports at the table if Greg Piper's huge parliamentary victory is to lead to a Newcastle container terminal

It's a great moment, and the region as a whole should be thankful to the Lake Macquarie Independent (and his staff), for achieving what he has against a battalion of enemies, some obvious, and others hidden.

But for everything that's happened this week, the Hunter is still a long way from seeing this dream realised.

I've been reporting on this story from the word go, back when BHP was still choofing out smoke and steel in Newcastle, and the terminal - as I have written many times before - was conceived as a parting gift to the city that helped a small 19^th century company become The Big Australian.

Along the way, I obtained documents in 2016 that finally forced the Coalition government to admit the existence of port commitment deeds - never declared to the NSW parliament - that worked to protect Port Botany's container monopoly on one hand, and to limit Newcastle's ability to move into this trade, on the other.

IN THE NEWS:

We need to remember, too, that Labor has also hampered the Newcastle bid during its time in power in Macquarie Street, so to me, criticisms of the government from Daniel Mookhey and other Labor members this week ring pretty hollow, if you compare what they are saying now, to the various things the ALP has done over the years to aid Botany, and hamper Newcastle.

So neither side of politics has clean hands on this one, which is why it took an unaligned Independent in the form of Mr Piper to force the issue, and why Newcastle MP Tim Crakanthorp, despite his undoubtedly genuine and forceful effort in using parliamentary questions and other tactics to support the Port of Newcastle (PoN) terminal proposal, has had to do so with little historic support from the bulk of his party.

Once the Piper Bill receives the NSW Governor's assent, an appointed valuer will be hired to calculate a theoretically fair amount that PoN must pay to the government to top up the $1.75 billion it paid to lease Newcastle in 2014.

PoN chief executive Craig Carmody cautions that if the figure is too high, Newcastle might not be able to commit.

That's obvious when you think about it, but I believe there's an even greater impediment than this to the project, and that's the fact that all of this has been done without - as far as I can tell - the involvement of NSW Ports, which is the party with the most (on the surface) to lose out of this arrangement.

Readers may remember that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took NSW Ports to the Federal Court, and had its case roundly dismissed last year by Justice Jane Jagot, who has since been elevated to the High Court of Australia.

I've had my own doubts about the viability of a Newcastle terminal, which I have made clear in various pieces over the years

. But my concerns pale beside the ferocity of Justice Jagot, who repeatedly questioned the viability of a Newcastle proposal in her decision, saying in her closing "key conclusions" that the chances of a Newcastle terminal while Botany still had space were "fanciful, far-fetched, infinitesimal or trivial".

Justice Jagot acknowledged that PoN believed otherwise, but the question now is, will someone stump up $2 billion or more in financing costs to build the terminal needed to cash in on the opportunity the Piper Bill theoretically opens up?

I have my doubts, especially while NSW Ports remains as implacably opposed to a Newcastle terminal as it appears to be.

I have long viewed this as a dispute that can only be settled by a commercial arrangement, rather than legislated into existence.

Botany has undeniably real and growing congestion problems.

From ship to shore is fine, but road congestion from container-carrying trucks is a major headache.

About 85 per cent of Botany's containers are trucked out of the port, with the remainder by rail.

Botany's throughput last year was 2.6 million containers, with no limit on expansion after the previous cap of 3.2 million boxes a year was extinguished in 2012.

NSW Ports and PoN have big superannuation companies as major shareholders.

Perhaps Botany could transfer some business to Newcastle, easing its congestion problems and possibly even freeing up land for more profitable use.

I put a detailed set of questions about these issues to NSW Ports on Wednesday.

They referred me to their previous statements earlier in the week, saying the existing Botany terminal, with Port Kembla next if Botany reached capacity, was still the best way forward.

They said they had not been involved in the negotiations over the port Bill, as Mr Piper's office confirmed.

A prominent union official once told me that it's the people who can stop you that you need to convince, not your supporters.

My fear is that until NSW Ports is brought into this deal, it won't go ahead.

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.