Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) —  I refer to part 3 of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee  report on  the  2011-12 budget estimates  dated  September 2011,  and specifically to table 7.15 on page 195, which deals with inquiries and reviews.

We  of course  know that  the Minister  for Ports has  waxed lyrical  before the Public Accounts and Estimates  Committee  and  publicly  about giant, driverless trucks that he intends to see plying their trade down to the port of Hastings — to the general incredulity of the people  of Victoria. The minister’s  proposal, however, in regard to the relocation of vehicle shipping to Geelong, as noted on page  197  of  the  report,  has  been  lampooned by industry as ill-founded and seriously inadequate.

The table shows that some $2 million will be allocated to this study and it will be completed by the end of 2011 — which of course was the end of last year, and still we wait. Toyota Australia has stated that  it would have a negative impact on the company’s operations and has further stated that  it has serious concerns about whether the proposal would be sustainable.  The proposal would require the company to shift the processing of some 41 000 imported vehicles and some 82 000 export vehicles to the port of Geelong. Toyota’s vehicles represent about 40 per cent of  all vehicle volumes traded through the port of Melbourne, and the  site proposed  is too small to  accommodate the current  and future vehicle importing and exporting requirements. It has significant limitations and is unsuitable for automotive use, and that is the publicly stated view of Toyota spokespersons.

Nissan has indicated that  the  relocation to Geelong of the vehicle trade would have a very substantial cost impact in terms of the way the trade is carried out and would involve double handling and increase port congestion.

Holden  has expressed concerns related to  both  the  size  and  nature  of  the proposed site and  its ability to support the  same trade volumes as the port of Melbourne.

It is believed the  port  of  Geelong  land is approximately 12 hectares smaller than the industry needs, and indeed the  Federal  Chamber  of  Automotive   Industries  described  the  proposal  as ill-founded and went further, saying that it should not proceed. Indeed the FCAI said:

  …  the industry  is  emphatically  of the  view  that  the proposal,  though  well-intentioned by state government, is not practical and cannot proceed.

That statement  was made by  Mr Chalmers,  who is  from the  FCAI. The  shipping industry has been  equally or perhaps even more emphatic in its criticism of the proposal and its impact. Mr Phil Kelly of Shipping  Australia  Ltd  outlined the industry’s concern  in  a  recent article  in  Shipping Australia  magazine.  He identified  some six areas of  substantial problems: firstly,  the inadequacy of the  area  of  land  to  be  reclaimed, and secondly, that  the  proposal  would effectively require a double handling of transport  legs due to the inability to have direct movement to the location.

Indeed his estimate is  that that will add something like 25 per cent to vehicle costs  and the  load of  vehicles moving over the West Gate Bridge,  because the distribution centres are in the east and south-east of Melbourne.

Thirdly, he said the relocation of car shipping would splinter the workforce and have a dramatic negative impact on the stevedoring companies in their attempt to maintain adequately trained and manned staff at both ports. Fourthly, break bulk may  be  forced to  follow  the  car  trade to  the  port  of Geelong  to  avoid splintering the workforce, which would cause substantial costs. Fifthly, none of the stakeholders were  convinced that the port  would be sufficiently  clean  to discharge and temporarily store  the  vehicles as they need to be effectively at showroom standard in order for them  to be imported. Sixthly, a hugely expensive rotor-propelled tug would be required to transit the Geelong channel without the need for major dredging, and the costs of this would have to be borne somewhere.

In summary, the magazine said that as the shipping lines see  it, the  perceived benefits to Geelong  and district  could be  achieved only  at great cost to all other parties involved. This is a compelling argument in favour of retaining the car trade in Melbourne, and because the industry is so clearly of this  view the government needs to come clean and admit that this is  a hoax  being perpetrated upon the people of Geelong.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.