Updated October 29 2025
Port Commitment Deeds are unlawful and unenforceable
The “Port Commitment Deeds” (PCDs) leasing arrangements for Port Botany, Port Kembla, and the Port of Newcastle were not, and could not have been, Parliament’s legislative intention under Sections 6 and 7 of the “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2012” (PAAT Act).
The PCDs are unlawful and unenforceable under the PAAT Act.
The Treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon Daniel Mookhey MLC, confirmed on May 14 2024 that the previous government lied to the public and Parliament by denying the PCDs leasing arrangements for three years.
The lie was exposed by a newspaper, the “Newcastle Herald”, on July 29 2016. Despite asking more than 100 questions in Parliament, the (then) Labor opposition, and the Greens, were told by the (then) government there were no PCDs leasing arrangements before the truth was revealed in the media.
Sections 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act authorised the (then) Treasurer to do what was required to be done to lease Port Botany, Port Kembla, and the Port of Newcastle to the private sector.
Section 6: “The Treasurer has and may exercise all such functions as are necessary or convenient for the purposes of an authorised transaction. The functions conferred on the Treasurer by any other provision of this Act do not limit the Treasurer’s functions under this section.”
Section 7(2): “There are no limitations as to the nature of the transactions or arrangements that can be entered into or used for the purposes of an authorised transaction.”
On the basis of Sections 6 and 7, the legislative intention of the NSW Parliament in enacting the PAAT Act may be discerned: It was not, and could not have been, Parliament’s legislative intention for the (then) Treasurer to make denied leasing arrangements.
The Minns government has refused to advise the High Court of Australia that the previous government lied to the public and Parliament for three years by denying the PCDs leasing arrangements.
The “State of New South Wales” (the State) is a respondent in “Mayfield Development Corporation V NSW Ports” in the High Court of Australia. The High Court is considering whether the leasing arrangements were subject to the Commonwealth “Competition and Consumer Act 2010” (CCA).
The Minns government advised the High Court that it was Parliament’s legislative intention for the previous government to make the leasing arrangements, without advising that the leasing arrangements had been denied for three years.
NSW Premier, the Hon Chris Minns MP, has not advised the public and Parliament that it was Parliament’s legislative intention for the previous government to make denied leasing arrangements. He will not provide this advice because it is not true.
The Minns government is knowingly and intentionally misleading the High Court, public, and Parliament by advising the High Court that it was Parliament’s legislative intention for the previous government to make the PCDs leasing arrangements.
As a result of being misled, the High Court is unwittingly setting a legal precedent that Parliament can legislate for the Executive to lie to Parliament.
In Australia, the “Separation of Powers” distributes the power to govern between the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. The precedent unwittingly being set by the High Court gives the Executive ascendancy over the Parliament and the Judiciary.
Mayfield Development Corporation
Mayfield Development Corporation Pty Ltd (Mayfield) is appealing the decision by the Full Bench of the Federal Court in “Mayfield V NSW Ports” that the PCDs are exempt from the CCA.
The Federal Court ruled that it was Parliament’s legislative intention, under Sections 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act, for the PCDs to be exempt from the CCA. However, the Federal Court was not informed that the previous government had lied to Parliament for three years by denying the PCDs.
The secretly made PCDs require the State to pay NSW Ports for the number of containers handled at the Port of Newcastle above an annual cap until 2063, while there is available capacity at Port Botany or Port Kembla.
State’s liability to pay NSW Ports up to $4.3 billion is unfunded
Parliament legislated for Port Botany and Port Kembla – but not the Port of Newcastle – to be leased to the private sector, by passing the PAAT Act, on November 22 2012. The previous government confirmed on November 14 2017 that the State was not authorised by the PAAT Act to use consolidated revenue to pay NSW Ports for containers handled at the Port of Newcastle.
NSW Ports paid the State $5.1 billion on May 31 2013 for 99-year leases to Port Botany and Port Kembla. The State’s contractual commitment to pay NSW Ports was unfunded as at May 31 2013.
The State’s intention was to require Mayfield to “make the State whole” for any cost the State incurred in paying NSW Ports “due to Mayfield’s activities in the Port of Newcastle”. In that way, the State would be able to pay NSW Ports without using consolidated revenue.
As soon as Port Botany and Port Kembla were leased to NSW Ports, Parliament amended the PAAT Act by including the Port of Newcastle so that the port could be leased to the private sector. The amended act commenced on June 26 2013.
The State’s intention was to require either Mayfield, or another lessee, to fund the cost of the State paying NSW Ports. NSW Ports would not be paid if NSW Ports leased the Port of Newcastle, or any material part of the port, or operated a container terminal at the port.
The State concealed its intentions from the public and Parliament.
PON paid the State $1.75 billion on May 30 2014 for a 98-year lease to the Port of Newcastle. PON agreed to reimburse the State for the cost of the denied PCDs for Port Botany and Port Kembla.
The Port of Newcastle was leased to PON for the purpose of funding the State’s denied liability to pay NSW Ports, which Premier Chris Minns told Parliament on March 21 2024 will cost between $600 million and $4.3 billion if PON proceeds with its plan to build a $2.5 billion container terminal.
It was not Parliament’s legislative intention under the PAAT Act for the Port of Newcastle to be leased to the private sector for the purpose of funding the denied PCDs for Port Botany and Port Kembla. The Port of Newcastle was leased for an unlawful purpose.
Parliament passed the “Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Act 2022” on November 10 2022 enabling PON to fully discharge its liability with a once-off payment. PON discharged its liability by paying the State $13 million on April 30 2024.
The State’s liability to pay NSW Ports between $600 million and $4.3 billion became unfunded when PON paid the State $13 million on April 30 2024. NSW Ports may not be paid without Parliament passing enabling legislation.
Federal Court trials
On August 7 2025, a unanimous decision by six judges of the High Court granted Mayfield’s application for special leave to appeal a decision by the Full Bench of the Federal Court in “Mayfield V NSW Ports”. The three parties in this Federal Court trial were Mayfield, the State, and NSW Ports.
They agreed to the facts established in an earlier trial – “ACCC V NSW Ports”. This trial did not include Mayfield.
In ACCC V NSW Ports, the Federal Court ruled that the State and NSW Ports were immune from the CCA because the PCD’s were Parliament’s legislative intention under Sections 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act. The Federal Court made its judgement on June 29 2021 without knowing that for three years the (then) government had denied the PCDs. The Court said at 402:
“The scheme of the PAAT Act thus enables the Treasurer to do what is required to be done for the purposes of an authorised transaction. On this basis, the legislative intention of the NSW Parliament in enacting the PAAT Act may be discerned. The NSW Parliament intended that the statutory rights vested in the Treasurer by the PAAT Act included the Treasurer, for the purposes of an authorised transaction, requiring the other party to the transaction to engage in conduct that would otherwise contravene the CCA.”
Parliament’s legislative intention may be discerned from the fact that the previous government lied about the PCDs by denying them, which was not disclosed to the Court.
Mayfield filed its High Court appeal on August 21 2025. Mayfield is appealing “the whole of the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Lee, Colvin and Stewart JJ) given on 3 April 2025”.
Mayfield’s stated grounds were: “The Full Court of the Federal Court erred in concluding that the First to Third Respondents [NSW Ports] were entitled to “derivative Crown immunity” in respect of their entry into contracts, and an alleged understanding, with the Fourth Respondent [the State], such that ss 45 and 45DA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) do not apply to their conduct.”
Mayfield requested an order that “the matter be remitted to the primary judge for further determination”.
Mayfield’s written submissions, and Chronology, were lodged on September 25 2025.
NSW Ports’ and the State’s written submissions were lodged on October 23 2025. The State did not advise the Court that the previous government lied for three years by denying the PCDs.
The High Court’s reply is due by November 13 2025.
ACCC intervenes on October 9
The ACCC sought leave to intervene in Mayfield’s appeal hearing on October 9 2025 in support of Mayfield’s appeal. The ACCC said:
“As the PAAT Act did not purport to, and could not, without reliance on s 51(1) of the CCA, validly confer upon the Treasurer of NSW the power to dispense with compliance with the CCA, the State of NSW had no legal right or interest to deal with private parties in the conduct of their business on the basis that those parties were free from their ordinary obligations under the CCA. The application of the CCA to NSW Ports therefore could not divest the State of any such right or interest. Under ss 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act, the Treasurer was free to make any such contracts as he was able to agree with NSW Ports, but that freedom did not extend to relieving them of their obligations under the CCA (even if that would have increased the economic value that the State could extract from the ports).”
The ACCC is presuming that it was Parliament’s legislative intention under Sections 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act for the previous government to make the PCDs for Port Botany, Port Kembla, and the Port of Newcastle.
This presumption is incorrect.
Parliament’s legislative intention under Sections 6 and 7 may be discerned from the fact that the previous government lied to the public and Parliament for three years by denying the PCDs. It was impossible that Parliament intended for the Treasurer to make denied leasing arrangements.
The ACCC said: “As the PAAT Act did not relevantly confer anything greater than a capacity to enter into a contract upon such terms as could lawfully be agreed, it did not confer a legal right or interest that was divested by application of ss45 and 45DA of the CCA to NSW Ports. Accordingly, NSW Ports did not benefit from derivative Crown immunity with respect to those provisions.”
In fact, the PCDs could not “lawfully be agreed” because they were not Parliament’s legislative intention under Sections 6 and 7 of the PAAT Act: they were unlawful and unenforceable under the PAAT Act.
The ACCC said it “has a substantial interest in the proper construction of the CCA as the regulator responsible for the administration and enforcement of the CCA”.
“The ACCC has previously alleged that the transactions that are now before the Court contravened the CCA,” the ACCC said.
“Further, the extent to which private corporations that contract with an Executive government are subject to competitive conduct regulatory provisions under the CCA is a question of public importance, and the ACCC’s intervention would “assist [the Court] to reach [the] correct determination of that question.”
Events timeline
In March 2010, Mayfield commenced negotiating with Newcastle Port Corporation (NPC), a statutory, State-owned corporation, to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle with minimum capacity of one million containers a year. A contract was ready to be signed in December 2010. However, the (then) Labor Treasurer failed to approve the contract before the state election held on March 26 2011, which the Coalition won.
During the debate on the “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012”, on October 17 2012, Parliament was advised by the (then) Treasurer that Port Botany and Port Kembla would not be leased to the private sector unless the proceeds exceeded the retention value of the assets. The Port of Newcastle was not included in the bill. Parliament was specifically advised that the Port of Newcastle would not be leased to the private sector.
Parliament passed the PAAT Act on November 22 2012.
IFM Investors (IFM) and Hastings Funds Management (Hastings) were among 12 bidders for the Port Botany and Port Kembla leases who submitted bids in December 2012. It has not been disclosed whether any of these bids exceeded the retention value of the assets. The retention value has not been disclosed.
Port Botany and Port Kembla were unlawfully leased to the private sector if the proceeds did not exceed the retention value.
In February 2013, Hastings requested compensation if NPC developed a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
On February 28 2013, the State decided to pay a lessee of Port Botany and Port Kembla for the number of containers handled at the Port of Newcastle above an annual cap until 2063. Bidders were advised that Mayfield would be required to reimburse the State for any payment made due to Mayfield’s activities in the Port of Newcastle. Mayfield was not advised of this decision.
Both IFM and Hastings increased their bids. In the Federal Court’s judgement in “ACCC V NSW Ports”, the Court said:
“121. In a meeting on 28 February 2013 the Steering Committee established within NSW Treasury considered that the ongoing discussions between Government and NPC would need to be disclosed to bidders and that once disclosed other bidders may also seek compensation for a Government sponsored container terminal at Newcastle. It was noted that a competing container terminal at Newcastle would impact the value of the Port Botany and Port Kembla transaction by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Existing NSW government policy that such a container terminal would only be permitted once Port Botany and Port Kembla were both full was also noted.”
IFM and Hastings agreed with the State that Mayfield would be required to reimburse the State for any payment it made to a lessee of Port Botany and Port Kembla due to Mayfield’s activities in the Port of Newcastle.
IFM, acting for the NSW Ports consortium, was the successful bidder. Hastings’ unsuccessful bid was $14 million lower than IFM’s bid of $5.1 billion.
NSW Ports became the lessee of Port Botany and Port Kembla on May 31 2013. Under the PCDs, NSW Ports agreed to be paid by the State for the number of containers handled at the Port of Newcastle above an annual cap until 2063. However, if NSW Ports leased the Port of Newcastle, or any material part of the port, or operated a container terminal at the port, there would be no payment.
The (then) Treasurer announced on June 18 2013: “Newcastle will be the big winner from the offer of a long-term lease on the city’s port facilities, NSW Treasurer Mike Baird said today. The Government has announced in the 2013-14 Budget [June 18 2013] it will proceed immediately to a scoping study on offering a 99-year lease on the Port of Newcastle.”
The Treasurer’s Notice of Motion for the “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Amendment Bill 2013” – authorising the Treasurer to lease the Port of Newcastle to the private sector – was made on June 18 2013. The first, second and third readings of the bill occurred on June 19 2013.
Legislative Assembly June 19 2013
PORTS ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Second Reading
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) [6.28 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to the debate to oppose the Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill enables the sale of the Port of Newcastle through a 99-year lease. This bill, which was introduced only today, is being unnecessarily rushed through this Parliament. Members have not had an opportunity to consult with their communities or assess its potential impacts. Bills are meant to be laid on the table for at least five calendar days, and substantial legislation such as this should be laid on the table for longer. By using its majority to override this process, the Executive is showing contempt for Parliament and the people we represent, which is wrong.
…
For such a substantial transaction there should be full and thorough parliamentary and community scrutiny. That is not happening. There is no information available in support of the bill. I acknowledge that Labor was given a briefing on the bill but Mr Jamie Parker, The Greens member for Balmain, Mr Greg Piper, the Independent member for Lake Macquarie, and I were not given any information in advance of the bill’s introduction. As there is no information in support of this bill I oppose it.
[End of Transcript]
Parliament was not told that Mayfield, or a future lessee of the Port of Newcastle, would be required to reimburse the State for any payment made to NSW Ports under the secret PCDs for Port Botany and Port Kembla.
The bill was passed on June 26 2013.
Mayfield was informed on August 6 2013 that a condition of continuing to negotiate with NPC was to reimburse the State for any cost the State incurred to NSW Ports due to Mayfield’s activities in the Port of Newcastle.
On October 14 2013, Mayfield informed NPC that it considered the reimbursement requirement to be illegal under the CCA. Mayfield refused to be penalised in respect of the number of containers it handled.
On October 17 2013, the (then) Minister for Roads and Ports was asked in the Legislative Council: “How much compensation will be paid to the private operator of Port Botany if a new container terminal is developed at Newcastle Port?” The compensation liability was denied.
On October 28 2013, the Treasurer announced that the scoping study into leasing the Port of Newcastle to the private sector had been received.
On November 5 2013, the Treasurer announced a decision to lease the Port of Newcastle to the private sector.
On November 8 2013, the Treasurer terminated Mayfield’s negotiation with NPC.
The State paid Mayfield compensation of $1,854,401 on December 24 2013.
Hastings was the successful bidder for the Port of Newcastle lease on May 30 2014. Hastings was acting for the PON consortium. At that time, Hastings was the investment manager for “The Infrastructure Fund” (TIF). PON is a joint venture between TIF and China Merchants. PON agreed to be penalised for developing a container terminal under the terms of the PCD for the Port of Newcastle.
The late Greens MLC, Dr John Kaye said on December 16 2014: “The Baird government has dodged parliamentary questions on notice about the size of the cap on container movements through the Port of Newcastle and the compensation that would have to be paid if it were exceeded.”
The (then) government denied the PCDs at Budget Estimates hearings on August 31 and September 3 2015.
More than 100 questions were asked in Parliament before the (then) Treasurer admitted the PCDs to the Newcastle Herald, on July 29 2016. The Newcastle Herald reported:
THE state government has finally confirmed it struck a “strictly confidential” agreement with the private operator of Port Botany and Port Kembla to compensate it against any competing container terminal in Newcastle.
The government has repeatedly denied or disputed the existence of such an agreement, which has been the subject of more than 100 separate questions to parliament over the past two years.
Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian was still saying on Thursday that there was no “legislated container cap at the Port of Newcastle”, and that arrangements do not prohibit the development of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
But Ms Berejiklian did not question the 11-page “Port Commitment” document obtained by the Newcastle Herald, which explains how the operator of any future Newcastle container terminal would have to pay compensation to the government, which would pass the money on to the operator of Port Botany and Port Kembla.
[End of Extract]
In a media release on July 29 2016, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP said: “The Baird Government must end the secrecy over its reported undertaking that if the Port of Newcastle seeks to handle shipping containers, it will be required to pay compensation to the private operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla.”
The previous government confirmed on November 14 2017 that the use of consolidated revenue to pay NSW Ports was not authorised by the PAAT Act.
Legislative Council October 10 2017
1792 – Roads, Maritime and Freight – NSW PORTS GOVERNMENT CAP
Nile, Fred to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, Minister for Trade and Industry representing the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight
- Does the Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2012 authorise the Government lease the Port of Newcastle?
- Did the Government enter into an agreement with NSW Ports in April 2013 to pay NSW Ports for container shipments above the Government’s cap at the Port of Newcastle?
- Is the use of consolidated revenue to pay NSW Ports for container shipments above the Government’s cap at the Port of Newcastle authorised by the 2012 Act, and if so, under what section?
- Does the Government fine the lessee of the Port of Newcastle under the 2012 Act for container shipments above the Government cap?
- Is the consolidated revenue to pay NSW Ports for container shipments above the Government’s cap at the Port of Newcastle authorised by the Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Amendment Act 2013, and if so, under what section?
Answer November 14 2017
- Yes.
- The State entered into Commitment Deeds in May 2013, which can require payments by the State, in certain circumstances. To date, the State has not made any such payments under these Deeds.
- No.
- The Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2012 does not contain provisions to fine parties to the Commitment Deeds in respect of payments under the Commitment Deeds.
- No.
Macquarie Bank replaced Hastings as TIF’s investment manager in 2018.
On December 10 2018, the ACCC commenced a Federal Court action against NSW Ports alleging a contravention of the CCA. NSW Ports lodged a cross-claim against the State.
Mayfield commenced a Federal Court action against NSW Ports on May 31 2019. The ACCC objected to Mayfield’s action proceeding in tandem with the ACCC’s action. Mayfield’s action was stayed pending a decision in the ACCC’s action.
On September 5 2019, the (then) Premier, the Hon Gladys Berejiklian MP, told a Budget Estimates hearing: “You would need to triple container movements at the Port of Newcastle before any penalties came into play….there would need to be a significant increase in the number of containers moving to and from that port before any type of financial impediment was struck.”
The Federal Court ruled on June 29 2021 that the PCDs did not contravene the CCA. It held that the State was immune from the CCA because the PCDs were Parliament’s legislative intention under the scheme of the PAAT Act, and that NSW Ports enjoyed “derivative crown immunity”. The Court was unaware that the PCDS were denied for three years.
On November 8 and 10 2022, during debate on the “Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Bill 2022”, the (then) government refused to disclose the amount payable to NSW Ports under the PCDs.
The (then) opposition informed Parliament that the (then) government had lied to the public and Parliament by denying the PCDs.
Legislative Council November 10 2022
Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Bill 2022
Second Reading Speech
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (Minister for Regional Transport and Roads) (16:36): On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope [Minister for Finance; Leader of the government in the Legislative Council]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
….The Government also wholeheartedly rejects the appalling mischaracterisation by the Opposition that the Port Commitment Deed is a brake on development for the regions around Newcastle. I understand that the Port of Newcastle has not formally submitted business cases and robust investment plans to the Government about its future, but the transaction and the deed have never prevented the Port of Newcastle from expanding its activities. Moreover, it has not been able to demonstrate that the cap is onerous. Last year its container figures were approximately 3½ thousand—well below the cap of 50,000 containers.
Looking ahead to the next few years, no credible evidence has been presented about how Port of Newcastle will approach the cap, which allows for natural, organic growth every year in the future. That means it is nowhere close to the cap, and it is unclear to the Government why the cap has any bearing on its existing plans. Government policy has never prevented the Port of Newcastle’s operators from making decisions about investing in its future. For Labor to say the Government is putting brakes on the Hunter region is a complete lie. In fact, this Government has invested billions into the Hunter, including $835 million for John Hunter health precinct and $500 million for the new Maitland Hospital and car park.
Legislative Council, November 10 2022
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:49): I recall, from my very first budget estimates hearing of any type, sitting in the Macquarie Room across from Duncan Gay as he lied and denied the existence of a cap. For years he said that there was no cap in place that would deny the Port of Newcastle its future. He said that from the very place where the Hon. Sam Farraway just spoke. When the Opposition asked about it in question time then, the Minister said that there was no cap whatsoever. The Opposition moved motion after motion under Standing Order 52 to bring this to light, and the motions were denied. At every opportunity, the Government voted to cover up the pathetic deal that it had entered into on behalf of the people of New South Wales.
Legislative Council, November 10 2022
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (18:48): … I am happy that the bill has come before the House in the final days of the 12‑year parliamentary term of this Government. The Opposition will advocate and has advocated over recent weeks that there is a better way to do this, and we will refer to that debate. We believe that a better way to facilitate the arrangement is to force a commercial deal between the ports and protect taxpayers’ interests. I thank the shadow Treasurer for carefully advocating a view about that and for talking to the boards, his colleagues and a range of parties about a way to do it. The Opposition believes there is some risk to the State’s taxpayers in the option that the Government has chosen. Having said that, we will not stand in the way of the bill. We want it to go through the Parliament, and we want to see a container terminal in Newcastle.
…
This is the heart of the problem with the deal, and now the Government is unable to tell us whether or not we will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars or more than $1 billion… We know that some of those obligations are not extinguished. There is no answer at all from the Government on the central issue that caused us a problem. It is simply extraordinary that it cannot provide this level of detail. Ministers in this Government hid these deeds. They lied about these deeds. That is what they did, and that is what the Premier did. And now there are no answers. No-one from the Government will stand up to defend this deal, and that is extraordinary. They will not answer the central question: How much are we on the hook for? I invite the Minister to respond to this question.
Legislative Assembly, November 8 2022
Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland) (13:54): I contribute to debate on the Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Bill 2022. Government members are obsessed with privatisation. As we have heard many times today, the privatisation of the port has been one of the worst privatisations on record, even by the low standards of the Government. I remember when the idea was first discussed. Before I was elected to Parliament, and on behalf of my business, I was on the community liaison committee that asked, “What about the deed?” Everyone said, “No, there is no deed. It will all be the same.” That is a big fat lie.
Legislative Assembly, November 8 2022
Ms KATE WASHINGTON (Port Stephens) (15:44): Members of the National Party who tried desperately to blame everyone else should remember the chief architect of that dodgy deal was the then leader of the National Party. Ever since the deal was signed, the people of New South Wales have been lied to. The secrecy around it was almost as bad as the ideology behind it. Treasurer after Treasurer and Premier after Premier have told the Parliament and the community that Newcastle port was free to build a container terminal, but now they admit that was wrong. We simply cannot trust a single thing the Government says, especially when it comes to the Hunter. It is most infuriating that our communities will end up paying the price.
[End of Transcripts]
The ACCC appealed the Federal Court’s decision, but this appeal was dismissed by the Full Bench on February 23 2023. The State did not inform the Court that the (then) government had denied the PCDs, by lying.
Labor won the New South Wales general election on March 25 2023.
Mayfield re-commenced its Federal Court action on June 22 2023.
Premier Minns informed Parliament on March 21 2024 that the government’s estimated liability to NSW Ports was between $600 million and $4.3 billion in today’s dollars.
Legislative Assembly, March 21 2024
Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) (11:18): My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on the ongoing impacts of the former Government’s privatisation agenda.
Mr CHRIS MINNS (Kogarah—Premier) (11:18): It is my duty to report to the House on the results of privatisation contracts pursued by the previous Government in 2013 and 2014. To set the scene, it is important members understand that in 2013 the previous Government sold Port Botany for $4.3 billion. Port Kembla was sold in the same year for $760 million.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kiama will come to order.
Mr CHRIS MINNS: The Port of Newcastle was sold for $1.7 billion. At the time, the then Premier said it was a great win for New South Wales. He said that we had achieved an incredible result.
The SPEAKER: Members will come to order.
Mr CHRIS MINNS: In any event, the report is in and it details that the liability for the State of New South Wales, none of which was disclosed to the taxpayers of the State during that period, is anywhere between $600 million and $4.3 billion—secret contracts negotiated by the previous Government and not disclosed to the taxpayers of this State.
[End of Transcript]
On April 5 2024, the Treasurer, the Hon Daniel Mookhey MLC, announced IPART’s determination that PON could extinguish its liability to reimburse the State by paying $13 million under the “Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Act 2022”. PON relieved itself of a liability of up to $4.3 billion by paying the State $13 million on April 30 2024.
On May 14 2024, Treasurer Mookhey re-confirmed that the previous government had denied the PCDs, by lying.
Legislative Council, May 14 2024
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey (Treasurer) (14.08): I recall Duncan the Great, as I like to refer to him, denying in budget estimates hearings—
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: That’s what he calls himself too.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: He calls himself far better. But there he was saying that no such deal was ever done. We learnt that that was not true and that such a clause did exist…
[End of Transcript]
The State, under the Minns government, was a respondent in Mayfield’s action against NSW Ports but did not inform the Court that the previous government had denied the PCDs, by lying.
The Federal Court dismissed Mayfield’s case on June 3 2024.
Mayfield appealed on June 28 2024. This appeal was dismissed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court on April 3 2025. The State was a respondent in these proceedings but did not inform the Court that the previous government had denied the PCDs, by lying.
Mayfield applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court on May 1 2025. Again, the State was a respondent in these proceedings but did not inform the Court that the previous government had denied the PCDs, by lying.
By the unanimous decision of six judges, the High Court granted Mayfield’s appeal request on August 7 2025.
Mayfield filed its appeal with the High Court on August 21 2025.
The ACCC sought leave to intervene on October 9 2025.
NSW Ports and the State made their submissions on October 23 2025.
The High Court’s reply is due by November 13 2025.
References
Hansard – see Hansard Section
Submission to IPART from Greg Cameron June 19 2023
Submission to TfNSW from Greg Cameron May 30 2024
Greens statement December 16 2014 and media reports
Newcastle Herald, July 29 2016
The Australian Financial Review, August 1 2016
The Australian Financial Review, January 3 2014
Links
Government policy statements to January 2020 are here.
2008 March 6: Member for Newcastle, Ms Jodi McKay, informs Parliament of government decision to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
2009 November: Newcastle Port Corporation (NPC), a statutory state-owned corporation, receives government approval to develop a container terminal with minimum capacity of 1 million TEUs a year, calls for expressions of interest.
2010 February 11: Newcastle Stevedores Consortium Pty Ltd (NSC) submits detailed proposal to NPC. NPC negotiates with NSC. Term Sheets are prepared. NPC seeks approval from the NSW Treasurer to enter into a contract with NSC.
In its “Statement of Corporate Intent” for 2010-11, Newcastle Port Corporation says:
“6.2 Executing NPC’s Container Strategy
NPC’s strategy for establishing the next container terminal in New South Wales on the Mayfield site is:
to ensure the NSW Ports Plan confirms that the Mayfield site in the Port of Newcastle would be the site for the next major international container terminal in the State;
to ensure State and National reviews (such as the NSW Freight Strategy) are informed on the opportunities that the Mayfield site offers as a future container terminal site that is capable of being delivered at low cost to the State; and
to seek a suitable partner to establish a container facility on Mayfield ahead of the facilities at Port Botany reaching capacity.”
NPC seeks formal planning approval for its “Concept Plan” for developing the Mayfield Site.
2010 May 5: NPC invites NSC (and no other bidder) to engage in further discussions regarding the development and operation of cargo terminals at Mayfield.
2011 March 26: NPC does not receive government approval to enter into a contract with NSC before the March 26 2011 state election for the reasons noted by the NSW “Independent Commission Against Corruption”.
2011 April 12: NPC endorses NSC as preferred proponent for the development a Container Terminal and other port infrastructure at Mayfield; commences negotiating the terms of leases and project delivery agreements, the execution of which would require approval of NPC’s board of directors and the government.
2011 October 24: NPC and NSC complete negotiation of agreements for development by NSC of a Container Terminal and other port infrastructure at Mayfield.
2011 November 3: NPC’s Board resolves to seek government approval for NPC to execute the proposed project agreements .
2011 December 9: Government decides to conduct a scoping and strategy study in respect of its proposed lease of Port Botany and will not consider approving the execution by NPC of the proposed project agreements until the scoping and strategy study are concluded.
2011 December 14: Mayfield Development Corporation Pty Ltd (MDC) is registered by NSC. MDC is owned 61 per cent by Grup Maritim TCB and 39 per cent by Anglo Ports Pty Ltd.
Morgan Stanley is appointed to conduct a scoping study, in the first-half of 2012, into leasing Port Botany and Port Kembla. Government instructs Morgan Stanley to include a container “cap” for the purpose of making it uneconomical to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
2012 March 2 – Written brief to Hon M Baird proposing rail freight bypass
2012 March 22: Reply from Hon M Baird
2012 April: Bidders for Port Botany advise government that a competing container terminal at the Port of Newcastle could negatively affect perceived value of Port Botany to potential bidders.
2012 April 4 – Written brief to Hon M Baird about Newcastle rail bypass
2012 April 26 – Hon M Baird advises “at this stage, a decision is yet to be made about whether to proceed with a container terminal at Newcastle”.
2012 July 16: Minister for Planning and Infrastructure approves NPC’s “Concept Plan” under the “Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979”.
2012 July 27: Government announces a decision to lease Port Botany and Port Kembla. Included in this announcement is a decision not to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. The government’s intention to require MDC to pay the penalty is concealed from the public, parliament, NPC and MDC.
2012 August 30: Treasurer informs NSC the government will not approve a proposal that involves developing a Container Terminal at the Port of Newcastle before the developable container handling capacity at Port Botany and Port Kembla has been developed and is being fully utilised; and, the government will not execute the proposed project agreements negotiated by NSC and NPC. The government conceals its intention to apply the penalty to MDC.
2012 October 17 – 2nd reading of “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2012” committing government not to lease Ports Botany and Kembla unless lease values exceed retention values.
2012 November 22 – Parliament passes the “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Act 2012”.
2013 March 15: Government provides bidders for Port Botany/Port Kembla with draft Port Commitment Deeds and a memorandum concerning the development of multi-cargo facilities at the Port of Newcastle. Did this memorandum inform bidders about the government’s intention to require payment from MDC for developing a container terminal?
2013 April 26 – Letter requesting ACCC examination of “decision” not to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
2013 May 31: Port Botany and Port Kembla are leased to NSW Ports Pty Ltd. The government contractually commits to pay NSW Ports for losing container business to the Port of Newcastle. NSW Ports is aware that a container terminal may be developed at the Port of Newcastle contrary to government policy.
2013 June 7: ACCC responds to the April 26 request to examine the government’s “decision” not to develop a Newcastle container terminal; decides to take no action to enforce the CCA in the belief that the CCA does not apply to the government due to government policy that a container terminal will not be developed at the Port of Newcastle. The government’s intention to apply the penalty to MDC is concealed from the ACCC because the penalty disproves the government’s policy.
2013 June 18: Treasurer Baird announces a scoping study into leasing the Port of Newcastle.
2013 June 26: Parliament passes “Ports Assets (Authorised Transactions) Amendment Act 2013” enabling the Port of Newcastle to be leased while concealing its unfunded contractual commitment to pay NSW Ports and its intention to apply the Port of Newcastle container penalty to MDC.
2013 July 23 – letter from Hon A Albanese
2013 July 26: NSW Treasurer again “dictates” to MDC that “a container port not proceed at Newcastle”. The government conceals its intention to apply the penalty to MDC.
2013 August 5: MDC is informed about the penalty (see 6 i, j). NPC is required to include the penalty in the Term Sheets with MDC. NPC Board is obliged to satisfy itself that the penalty is legal under the CCA.
2013 October 17: Minister advises Parliament that the NPC Board was informed about a “cap on numbers”, but does not disclose that NPC’s Term Sheets with MDC were amended to include the penalty. NPC Board is aware that no decision has been made to lease the Port of Newcastle. NPC Board is aware that NPC is not exempt from the CCA in respect of the penalty.
2013 October 28: Treasurer Baird announces that no decision has been made to lease the Port of Newcastle.
2013 November: NPC terminates its negotiation with MDC on an undisclosed date because the penalty is likely to contravene the CCA.
2013 November 5: A decision to lease the Port of Newcastle is announced.
2014 March 4: Hon M Baird confirms official container terminal policy.
2014 May 1: NSW Treasury advises media: “The [Port of Newcastle] lease has been drawn up in accordance with the current NSW Government freight policy of Port Botany being the first container facility priority, with Port Kembla designated to take the overflow once Port Botany is full. Newcastle will be further developed once Port Kembla is full. Newcastle container throughput is, in the meantime, fully able to grow organically.” The contractual commitment to pay NSW Ports is not disclosed. The inclusion of the penalty in the lease to PoN is not disclosed.
2014 May 7: Parliament is informed that the proposed lease of the Port of Newcastle does not contain any provision that prevents a container terminal being developed on the former steelworks site. The inclusion of the penalty in the lease arrangements with PoN is not disclosed.
2014 May 11: Newcastle Herald reports:
“The government has confirmed it leased Botany with a clause that prevented Newcastle from competing against it with a container terminal.
“And the Newcastle lease is believed to contain a similar undertaking.”
2014 May 31: Port of Newcastle Investments Pty Ltd (PoN) signs a lease agreement with the government for the Port of Newcastle. The penalty is concealed from the public, parliament and NSW Ports.
2014 June 11: The Hon Gladys Berejiklian representing the Minister for Roads and Freight answers QON 5536 asked on May 7 2014: “Does the proposed lease of the Port of Newcastle contain any provision that prevents a container terminal being developed on the former steelworks site? Answer: No.”
2014 June 25: ACCC says:
“… the ACCC remains concerned over arrangements designed to maximise proceeds received by a government by reducing the prospect of competitive provision of port services. Another example relates to Port Botany and the Port of Newcastle. An article in the Newcastle Herald on 11 May 2014 stated:
“The government has confirmed it leased Botany with a clause that prevented Newcastle from competing against it with a container terminal.
And the Newcastle lease is believed to contain a similar undertaking”.
(“Reinvigorating Australia’s Competition Policy”, ACCC, Submission to the Competition Policy Review, 25 June 2014, p.38)
2014 October 30: ACCC says:
“The ACCC encourages early engagement from State governments on any competition issues that may arise in relation to the proposed sale structures or sale conditions for any monopoly or near monopoly assets, including any restrictions on competition proposed in the arrangements. Such restrictions may be unlawful and could be unenforceable.”
(“Container Stevedoring Monitoring Report No.16”, ACCC, October 2014, p.21)
2014 October 30: The Newcastle Herald reports: “Asked what it knew about the restrictions on Newcastle, an ACCC spokesman said the commission had been given information by state government officials “on the basis that we would keep that information confidential”.
2014 November 26: ACCC says:
“… since the 1990s, Australian governments have increasingly been participating in markets in ways that may not amount to “carrying on a business” for the purpose of competition law. Market-based mechanisms are used by governments to finance, manage and provide government goods and services (described as “contractualised governance” for the delivery of public services). Such mechanisms have the potential to significantly improve efficiency but also have the potential to harm competition – for example, by incorporating, in the contract, provisions that are likely to have the purpose or effect of restricting competition. The ACCC’s Initial Submission (section 3.3.1) includes the examples of:
Sydney airport – where the Commonwealth government leased Sydney Airport with the right of first refusal to operate a second Sydney airport at Badgery’s Creek.
Ports Botany and Kembla and the Port of Newcastle – where the NSW government leased the ports with clauses that may restrict Newcastle from competing against Botany and Kembla for container trade.”
(“Submission to the Competition Policy Review – Response to the Draft Report 26 November 2014”, ACCC, p.32)
2015 January 16: Treasurer, The Hon Andrew Constance MP, answers Question On Notice 6677
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 12 December 2014
*6677 PORT OF NEWCASTLE AND PORT BOTANY LEASES—Mr Tim Crakanthorp asked the Treasurer, and Minister for Industrial Relations
(1) Did the Government advise the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) of a cap on container numbers at the Port of Newcastle prior to leasing the Port of Newcastle and Port Botany?
(2) Did the Government agree to compensate NSW Ports for container numbers in excess of the cap at the Port of Newcastle?
(3) Did the Government advise bidders for the ports leases to obtain regulatory approval from the ACCC in relation to the cap on container numbers at the Port of Newcastle?
(4) Will the cap on container numbers at the Port of Newcastle reduce competition between ports in New South Wales for the container trade?
(5) Has the ACCC advised the Government that the cap on container numbers at the Port of Newcastle may be unlawful and could be unenforceable?
Answer (16 January 2015):
The transaction arrangements that the State entered into with the successful bidders for Port Botany and Kembla and the Port of Newcastle reflect its Freight and Ports Strategy, that Port Kembla should be the State’s next container terminal once Port Botany reaches capacity.
This strategy recognises that Port Botany has significant capacity for container growth; most containers travel within a relatively short distance of Port Botany; future demand for containers is expected to occur in the South West of Sydney and thereby closer to Port Kembla than Newcastle; and the landside infrastructure costs to support a major container facility at Newcastle are higher than for Port Kembla.
The arrangements do not prohibit the development of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle and enable the growth of container volumes through Newcastle servicing that region.
The Government’s transaction team engaged extensively with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding the competition and regulatory framework, including the container arrangements.
2015: PoN enters into an exclusive agreement with DP World to develop a container terminal.
2015 February 10: Anglo Ports statement published on NSW Parliament web site.
2015 August 31: The (former) Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, The Hon Duncan Gay MLC, denies there is a container “cap” at the Port of Newcastle.
2015 September 3: Hon Gladys Berejiklian denies there is a container “cap” at the Port of Newcastle.
2015 September 29: Hon Gladys Berejiklian continues to deny there is a container “cap”. Ms Berejiklian confirms: “I am advised that the lessee could develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle if it wished to do so.” (See question 29)
2016 March 9: Maersk Group completes $1 billion acquisition of Grup Maritim TCB’s rail and port interests, including MDC, which it owns with Anglo Ports Pty Ltd.
2016 July 28: “The Newcastle Herald” exposes the Port of Newcastle container “cap”.
2016 July 29 – Hon A Albanese media release
2016 August 10: Following media exposure of the container “cap” at the Port of Newcastle, the (former) Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, The Hon Duncan Gay MLC, provides some details.
2016 August 30 – ICAC releases “Operation Spicer” report detailing negotiations in 2010 between Newcastle Port Corporation and Newcastle Stevedores Consortium.
2016 September 1/2015 September 3: Budget Estimates testimony Hon G Berejiklian MP
2016 September 1: Hon Gladys Berejiklian defends her denial in 2015 that there is a container “cap” at the Port of Newcastle, on grounds that the “cap” is confidential.
2016 September 27: Hon Gladys Berejiklian advises that the “Government’s transaction team engaged extensively with the ACCC from the early stages of all the port transactions regarding the competition and regulatory framework supporting the transactions”.
2017 January 27 – letter on behalf of Federal Treasurer, Hon S Morrison
2017 February 23: ACCC confirms advice provided on June 7 2013 that the CCA does not apply to the government in respect of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle due to the government’s decision on July 27 2012 not to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
2017 November 14: Government confirms that “the use of consolidated revenue to pay NSW Ports for container shipments above the Government’s cap at the Port of Newcastle” is not authorised by the PAAT Act.
2018 August 16: PoN’s exclusive contract with DP World to develop a container terminal lapses. PoN to proceed with developing a container terminal itself.
2018 December 10: ACCC commences court action in the Federal Court against NSW Ports for making agreements with the NSW government that the ACCC alleges “had an anti-competitive purpose and effect” (see pages 7 and 30).
2019 January 14: Government provides details about the penalty but does not acknowledge that the penalty and the “cap on numbers” are the same thing.
Government states: “When Newcastle Port was leased in 2014, some of the State’s obligations to NSW Ports were contractually passed through to the Lessee of Newcastle Port. This arrangement was known to bidders and the ACCC ahead of the transaction and is documented in the Port of Newcastle PCD.”
2019 January 21: NSW Ports was aware of the government’s actual container terminal policy but not the penalty.
2019 January 31: NSW Ports says it became aware of the government’s funding arrangements – the penalty – when a report was published by “The Newcastle Herald” in July 2016.
2019 February 12: PoN answers supplementary questions from the Public Works Committee.
2019 May 15 – Federal Court order revealing MDC “transaction parameters”.
2019 May 31: MDC commences legal proceedings against NSW Ports in the Federal Court.
2019 July 18: NSW Ports makes a cross claim against the NSW government and PoN – see page 31.
2019 August 19: MDC and NSW Ports Pty Ltd agree in the Federal Court to stay proceedings.
2019 September 5: Hon Gladys Berejiklian tells parliament:
“You would need to triple container movements at the Port of Newcastle before any penalties came into play. So I say to those communities that want to increase their container movements at the point, there is capacity to triple that under the current arrangements…. Unless I am mistaken, there would need to be a significant increase in the number of containers moving to and from that port before any type of financial impediment was struck.”
There is no container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. In 2020, 451 general cargo ships carried 2,957 containers through the port. An average container ship carries 10,000 containers per visit.
2019 October 11: Federal Court orders include this:
“52.3
… at all relevant times prior to 31 May 2013 …
(E) …. any prospect that the operator of Port Kembla and/or the operator of the Port of Newcastle could materially increase supply of Container Services including by development and use of a Container Terminal at Port Kembla and/or the Port of Newcastle was so slight or hypothetical as not to be a relevant competitive constraint on the operator of Port Botany.
(F) the policy position of the State of New South Wales was that any new Container Terminal at Port Kembla or the Port of Newcastle would not be built until Port Botany reached full capacity.”
At all relevant times prior to May 31 2013, and until November 2013, the government’s preferred proponent for developing a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle was MDC. A container terminal could be developed under the government’s planning approval dated July 16 2012.
2019 November 6 – ACCC releases “Container Stevedoring Monitoring Report 2018-2019”.
2019 November 27: The government’s meaning of container is confidential and sub judice (see question 16 here).
There is a dispute between the government and the ACCC (see question 8 here) about the date the ACCC was told the developer of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle is required to pay the government for container volumes exceeding a threshold level.
The Treasurer, The Hon Dominic Perrottet MP, claims (see question 18 here) that the current Minister for Transport, The Hon Andrew Constance MP, was not the Treasurer when the Treasurer answered supplementary question 53 on August 22 2014. Treasurer Constance said: “Attempts by Government to dictate uneconomic enterprises contrary to market demand are examples of the kind of rent seeking activity likely to encourage influence peddling or corruption. As the container port did not proceed, there is no decision to review.”
2019 December 4 : Government policy features prominently in Federal Court orders.
2019 December 12: The Federal Court orders the parties to the ACCC’s action to agree a mediator by no later than January 31 2020. The parties are to attend a conference with the mediator by no later than April 3 2020.
2020 February 3: MDC files affidavit and interlocutory application with Federal Court. A Court hearing date is set for February 11 2020.
2020 February 10: Federal Court order ACCC V NSW Ports
2020 February 11: Federal Court order MDC V NSW Ports
2020 February 26: Judgement reserved in Federal Court hearing.
2020 February 28: Federal Court order in ACCC V NSW Ports; Court orders discovery of MDC documents
2020 March 5: Federal Court dismisses MDC’s application to lift the stay in proceedings. The Court said: “24 If, as MDC foreshadowed, the ACCC proceeding settles or is otherwise to be resolved on the basis of limited agreed facts, then MDC could apply at that time to lift the stay and the delay it may suffer will not be as great as might otherwise be the case. Similarly, if the hearing of the ACCC proceeding is itself delayed by unforeseen circumstances, it may be possible to achieve the concurrent hearing of the two proceedings. MDC will be able to re-agitate its claim to lift the stay in any of these circumstances.”
2020 March 9 – Treasurer is asked eight supplementary questions at Budget Estimates about the terms for developing a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle.
2020 March 26 – Federal Court orders
2020 April 23 – Treasurer Perrottet answers supplementary question 78
2020 May 26 – Revised MDC Statement of Claim
A better way
The NSW government does not support removing container trucks from Sydney’s roads.
Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Company Ltd (see Table 3-7 here) estimates that by 2040, there will be six million container trucks movements a year through Port Botany, which will reduce to five million if the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal operates at full capacity. Current container truck movements through Port Botany are one million a year. However, the government is unable to identify the capacity of the rail freight network serving the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.
Industry super funds own 80 percent of NSW Ports and 50 percent of Port of Newcastle Investments. These funds represent more than six million Australian workers and retired workers. Their responsibility to their members obliges then to act in the best interests of the Australian economy. It is in the best interests of the economy to transfer container terminal operations from Port Botany to the Port of Newcastle and Port Kembla, enabled by building a rail freight line between the Port of Newcastle, Badgery’s Creek and Port Kembla.
A rail freight bypass of Sydney – between Newcastle, Badgery’s Creek and Port Kembla – could be paid for by developing a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle and railing all containers for the entire NSW market.
A bi-partisan approach between the government and the opposition in the Parliament is required. Collaboration between NSW Ports and Port of Newcastle Investments is required. Development of a commercial arrangement to enhance all investors’ commercial returns by properly engaging the ACCC, is required. The objective is to develop an economic development strategy that is demonstrably better for the NSW economy than current arrangements.
This is what an investigation will involve:
Funding
Railing containers, rather than trucking them, will pay for privately funding, building and operating a rail freight bypass of Sydney, between the Port of Newcastle, Badgery’s Creek and Port Kembla. The compelling benefits of a rail-based freight transport strategy were provided in the “Deloitte Access Economics” report “The True Value of Rail, in June 2011
Intermodal terminals
Intermodal terminals would be established along the rail freight line to maximise logistics efficiency. Intermodal terminals established in regional areas would enable long term planning of the state’s future development based on rail transportation of containerised goods.
Regional economic development
Rail-based access to a container port is a prerequisite for regional economic development because 95% of world trade in goods is conducted using containers. Linked container terminals at the Port of Newcastle and Port Kembla would enable Sydney firms to profitably relocate to regional areas to take advantage of under-utilised regional infrastructure.
WestConnex
Around 85% of Port Botany’s containers are trucked. Currently, there are one million container truck movements a year through Port Botany. By 2040, there will be six million container truck movements a year. Even if the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal operates at full capacity, it will reduce the total by a mere one million a year.
A container truck carrying a full container in the M5 East west-bound tunnel is the equivalent of six passenger cars. A container truck in the east-bound M5 East tunnel is the equivalent of three passenger cars. Without WestConnex, there is no road capacity to handle the predicted increase in container truck movements through Port Botany.
However, it is necessary to connect WestConnex to Port Botany. This significant cost can be avoided if all containers are railed from the Port of Newcastle, with back-up from Port Kembla.
Port Botany
Port Botany would be closed as a container port after capacity was developed at Newcastle and Port Kembla, and the rail freight bypass was completed. While this work was underway, Botany freight would be railed via Glenfield to intermodal terminals at Badgery’s Creek or Eastern Creek, once built.
Increased rail passenger capacity
Removing freight from Sydney’s existing rail network would enable the capacity to be used for passenger services. Likewise removing freight from the existing rail lines between Newcastle and Sydney, and Port Kembla and Sydney, would allow the capacity to be used for passenger services. The economic value of converting rail freight capacity to passenger capacity is examined in “The True Value of Rail”.
Moorebank Intermodal Terminal
There would be no intermodal terminal at Moorebank because the existing rail freight capacity would be used for passenger services.
Northern Sydney Freight Corridor
The $1 billion “Northern Sydney Freight Corridor Stage One” will reach capacity by 2026. Stages 2 and 3 – to create the equivalent of a dedicated freight line between Newcastle and Strathfield – will cost at least $5 billion. This cost would be saved by building a rail freight bypass that would also have capacity to carry freight that would otherwise be trucked into Sydney, not only from the north but also from the south and west.
Maldon-Dombarton freight line
The $800 million cost of the Maldon-Dombarton freight line – connecting Port Kembla to the main southern line, extending to Badgery’s Creek and the Port of Newcastle – would be met by railing containers after Port Botany was closed.
Western Sydney Freight Line
There would be no need to build the $1 billion Western Sydney Freight Line, between Chullora and Eastern Creek.
Port Botany Rail Freight Line
There would be no need to spend $400 million upgrading the Port Botany rail freight line.
Hawkesbury River bridge
A vital second rail bridge would be built over the Hawkesbury River as part of the rail freight bypass.
Sydney Airport
Removing container ships from Port Botany would enable the short parallel runway at Sydney airport to be extended from 2600 metres to 4000 metres.
News Now