Major container ports in Australia have once again generally performed extraordinarily badly, according to data released by the World Bank.
Out of approximately 400 ports, worldwide, Australian ports performed as follows:
- Worst: Fremantle. Rank: 366 out of 400. Performance: -74.4.
- Second worst: Port Botany (Sydney). Rank 351 out of 400. Performance: -56.0.
- Third worst: Brisbane. Rank 301 out of 400. Performance: -19.9.
- Next: Adelaide. Rank 297 out of 400. Performance: -18.2.
- Least bad: Melbourne. Rank 182 out of 400. Performance: positive 3.9.
Bell Bay and Townsville were also ranked but as they have relatively small container volumes, we have decided not to cover them here.
We note coverage in recent trade media in which advocates for the port sector commented that most of the top-ranked ports are leading export and trans-shipment hubs. And that is, of course, true.
However, with the World Bank report, we can compare Australian ports against more directly comparable, er, comparators and we will see that Australian ports do not compare well. For example, we only need to look at Fremantle and Sydney, which are literally among the worst performing container ports in the world. We can compare them to Melbourne.
Melbourne has very similar socio-economic-cultural-geographic-labour law-industrial relations background to both Fremantle and Sydney, and yet Melbourne is objectively a far superior performer.
When there is that big of a gap between ports within Australia then trying to excuse Australian poor performance on one, or any combination of, those background simply doesn’t cut it.
Let’s turn to the other big argument, that the World Bank report doesn’t capture data on landside investment and efficiencies that ports have made.
Firstly, Melbourne has made lots of investment into its precincts and connectivity too. If the failure to perform was related to investment, then why are the other ports doing so badly relative to Melbourne?
Secondly, we’ve been here before. We have comprehensively de-bunked the investment argument. The World Bank CPPI report specifically measures time in port on the marine side. It doesn’t measure landside performance because its not a landside report. It’s a marine side report that measures marine side performance. The World Bank report measures something valuable i.e. marine side performance. If you measure landside performance in addition to marine side performance than you lose that value. There probably is a benefit in measuring landside performance but you would do that in a separate report.
Arguing that the World Bank report on marine side performance should include landside performance is exactly like arguing that apples should be orange because you think that orange is a prettier colour than green. And that argument is just flat out wrong. You can read that debate here.
The next problem for the port sector is even more serious. If there have been big investments in infrastructure, then why does their performance continue to be so stubbornly bad, year after year after year? If anything, the investment argument should be worrying, not reassuring. It suggests that there is something very seriously wrong in the Australian maritime sector. You can read all about that here.
Other findings
The World Bank CPPI report made a wide variety of findings.
- Firstly, global port efficiency remains under pressure from geopolitical instability, shipping network disruption, extreme weather events and persistent market volatility.
- Longer vessel turnaround times, often driven by rerouting and congestion, both reflect and exacerbate supply chain fragility.
- Conversely, ports that improve their operational resilience can help dampen disruptions and support more fluid global trade
- East Asian ports continue to perform strongly in the rankings, while the report also highlights promising improvements in ports across Africa, Latin America and South Asia (but not in Australia).
Commentary
“Understanding this two-way relationship is essential,” said Bertrand De la Borde, Global Director for Transport and Logistics at the World Bank Group. “Ports are not just passively exposed to external shocks; they also dynamically shape how those shocks are transmitted. They can either amplify disruptions or help contain them. Investing in port efficiency and digital management is not only beneficial to shipping lines – it is a core requirement to build more resilient supply chains and reduce the impact of volatility on economies and communities.”
Looking ahead, the report advocates targeted investments in operational efficiency, real-time data sharing, and flexible management practices. These measures can reduce vessel time in port, limit the propagation of delays, and foster a more fluid and resilient global trade environment.
“The findings reinforce that ports are critical nodes in the global supply chain,” said Turloch Mooney, Head of Port Intelligence & Analytics at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “By focusing on both improving port efficiency and understanding their active role in supply chain dynamics, stakeholders can better prepare for future shocks and support sustainable trade growth.”
About the index
Developed by the World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence, the global Container Port Performance Index is a comparable index of global container port performance intended to serve as a reference point for key stakeholders in the global economy, including national governments, port authorities, development agencies, supra-national organizations and private operators of trade, logistics and supply chain services.
Shipping Australia’s further view
The World Bank CPPI report is quite a substantial body of work and requires some time to review and digest. Shipping Australia will review the 2026 edition (which is titled “the Container Port Performance Index 2025”). We intend to publish a substantial write-up in our newsletter and website, as we did with last year’s edition.
