Ms Gina Cass-Gottlieb, the chair of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, has warned that Australia’s waterfront work practices and quayside industrial action are disrupting supply chains. These are contributing to the relatively poor performance of Australian ports.
“Any solutions to these challenges should aim to minimise the adverse impact of restrictive work practices and industrial actions on the efficient operation of Australia’s container ports,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
Towards the end of her speech, she went on to add that proper regulation is necessary to address restrictive work practices to improve efficiency.
She’s quite right.
All of this matters because over 99% by volume and about 84% by value of all goods and commodities that come into or out of this country do so by ship.
No matter who you are, or what you do, or where you live – even if you live in the middle of the desert – ocean shipping is a part of the life of every Australian.
Yet there is something very wrong on the waterfront.
Examining publications from the ACCC shows that, over the last 15 years or so, there has been at least AUD$6.5bn (and almost certainly a whole lot more) invested in new Australian waterfront productivity equipment and infrastructure – new wharves, new cranes, new control systems, even new terminals. Meanwhile, ACCC data shows that Australian crane rates were about 25 boxes per hour in 2000-2001, hit a peak of about 31 in 2013-14 and have fallen back to 28 or so in 2021.
Or, to put it another way, crane rates have stayed at roughly 28 boxes per hour for the last 20 years!
The are two main reasons. The first is repeated disruption by industrial action. There has been repeated industrial action because of the Enterprise Bargaining System over the last few years. A quick search on our website will find many instances.
The economic cost of shutdowns is huge. One rough estimate is that if there is a one-day shut-down at the main container ports in Australia*, then the value of the goods disrupted would be (on a conservative basis) about AUD$105 million a day. The value of goods lost (on land) is about AUD$31.6m a day… that’s a conservative figure too. It also doesn’t capture the full losses because there would also be losses at sea as industrial action delays shipping. And that’s before we even start getting into losses caused by the compounding effect of multiple strikes over time, and the multiplier effect of losses in the wider economy).
The second reason, as identified by Ms Gottlieb, are ongoing poor work practices.
We can provide a few examples.
In the Fair Work Commission, there are examples of crane gangs who had previously volunteered for overtime spontaneously “unvolunteering”. There are examples of unlawful productivity caps with crane gangs exceeding 260 lifts per shift about 22% of the time for a five-month period and then, suddenly and without explanation, the exceedance of 260 lifts falls to about 10% of the time.
In one case, a Fair Work Commissioner said of a container port that it is “characterised by a history of industrial action, including go-slows and productivity caps that are intended to damage the performance of the company”.
Before anyone complains about workers’ rights and a need for a more equitable share in the economy, please remember that waterfront workers have some of the country’s best terms and conditions.
The average permanent employee who is a wharfie was earning about AUD$155,000 a year, with the top earners receiving more than AUD$200,000 a year. That kind of pay puts wharfies on the same kind of salary scale as software engineers, quantitative analysts, engineering managers, and some legal professionals.
And, if that’s not enough, wharfies work on average about 26% few days than other Australians because they get a lot more holiday.
Reforming the waterfront workplace while still respecting workers’ rights is an imperative for the benefit of all Australians. Reforms could include:
- Notice of industrial action on the waterfront must be greatly increased from a mere three days to at least 31 days
- Enterprise bargaining should not occur on an industry / sector-wide basis as has been suggested in the media of late
- Enterprise bargaining on the waterfront should be staggered across different ports, terminals and key marine service providers so that the nation cannot be held hostage
- It follows that if enterprise bargaining should be staggered, then it needs to take place on a timetable. If the timetable is breached then the parties should be sent to immediate and compulsory binding arbitration
- There needs to be a ban on industrial action being taken against third parties – sometimes industrial action is taken against related but separate companies that are part of the same corporate group
- The practice of banning the loading and unloading of sub-contracted ships from a different terminal should not be allowed – that simply puts unfair and undue pressure on companies that are not even part of an industrial dispute.
Ms Gina Cass-Gottlieb was speaking at a Ports Australia conference held in late August / early September.
(*Which are, in descending order of volume: Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Fremantle, Adelaide).
