This month, DPWA gave “customers” notice of an increase in the “infrastructure surcharge” at Melbourne and said that a similar fee would be levied for the first time at its Sydney  terminal “as part of the basis for which access to the terminal is granted to both road and rail operators”

Like most facilities, Australian terminals provide landside service as part of the commercial contract with the shipping line. DPWA currently charges a relatively modest infrastructure  surcharge of A$3.45 in Melbourne, but does not levy this fee in Sydney.

From 3 April, a “surcharge” of A$32.50 in Melbourne and A$21.16 in Sydney will be applied to every full container delivered or collected by road or rail. The surcharge will be collected through the existing 1-Stop Vehicle Booking System (VBS) for road carriers, and invoiced to rail operators.

The Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA) and the Freight and Trade Alliance (FTA) have challenged both the surcharge and the “quantum of the increase”. The FTA is also  angered that DPWA is not levying the charges on empty containers, even where they use the same terminal infrastructure, as this would fall on their shipping line clients.

More importantly, the FTA has raised the issue of whether truckers are now actually paying for a service at the gate, and are entitled to a service level agreement in return.

Speaking with WorldCargo DPWA introduces gate charges News, Paul Zalai, director of the FTA, said that DPWA’s justification for the charges is that landside operators should  contribute to the cost of infrastructure devoted to servicing those modes. “If that is the case and the transport operators are paying for a service, then surely they can expect a service level agreement with penalties for non-performance and minimum standards on service delivery,” he said.

Sydney already has a regulatory framework for landside performance levels, in the form of minimum standards for service set by the state minister of transport under the Port Botany  Landside Improvement Scheme (PBLIS). This includes financial penalties on carriers and port operators for failing to meet performance criteria, including keeping appointments and  maximum truck turn times. 

“We have put to DP World that if similar standards could be delivered at their operations at Melbourne (without the Victorian state government intervention), then that would also go  some way to demonstrate a genuine commitment to best practice service delivery to the transport sector and flow-on benefits to shippers,” said Zalai.

The FTA is also considering whether wider changes are needed. “It may be time for shippers and freight forwarders to have a direct commercial relationship with stevedores to  negotiate costs, terms and operating conditions. Perhaps shippers and freight forwarders should also take direct control of their logistics, including VBS slot bookings and, as required, select available transport operators to deliver the service,” Zalai added.

This raises the issue of whether terminals should be allowed to use pricing to prioritise gate service, but Zalai said he was not sure this is a good idea. “I am mindful that any change  may have unforeseen consequences, so we need to be mindful of what we wish for. It looks like there is an appetite in an Australian context to explore reforms, so we will need give all options due consideration”.

In fact, when the PBLIS was introduced, it was intended to use an internet-based Dutch auction (descending bid) system to allocate gate slots, but the idea found no support from the transport community and was subsequently abandoned.

Read this item in full
This complete item is approximately 600 words in length, and appeared in the March 2017 issue of WorldCargo News, on page 8. To access this issue download the PDF here.