Add Category
Could the current row between the Dubai-owned stevedore, DP World, and the Maritime Union of Australia, see a repeat of the 1998 waterfront dispute?
Could it reignite inflation and cause the Reserve Bank to continue lifting interest rates?
These are questions that are being pondered because of disruptions at DP World's port terminals in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle.
A key element of the dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and DP World is about pay.
On Friday, the Fair Work Commission ruled that workers at DP World, could stop work at its Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle terminals.
On Monday, the MUA withdrew some work bans to prevent DP World from responding with lockouts at port terminals around the country.
It backed down from plans for eight hour delays and bans on certain shipping lines but said it will go ahead with lower-level stoppages including two-hour pauses on work.
The MUA is asking for a 16 per cent pay rise for more than 1,500 workers over two years, which it says is still below the rate paid by bigger rival Patrick.
DP World is also considering the union's request for back pay, it wants a rise of 27 per cent over two years.
But if the work stoppages persist and again escalate, experts warn of dire consequences.
There's not just a direct economic hit to those involved in the shipping trade.
There's a cascading impact on major businesses importing and exporting, and if not resolved, that could push up the price of goods for Australian consumers and reignite inflation.
"Inflation is a key problem at the moment," says economist Chris Richardson.
"These strikes carry more damage than they would usually do because we're dependent on keeping inflation down and keeping supply side disruptions to a minimum."
It is this economic threat that's a key factor behind why Industrial Relations Minister Tony Burke — whose office has been in regular discussion with the company — has now agreed to personally meet DP World's representatives on Thursday.
The context isn't just a conflict between a union-backed Labor government that wants to support workers' rights against an already profitable company that wants to keep its costs down.
It's happening as the cost-of-living crisis continues to hurt Australian families, with Mr Burke wanting to avoid a situation where a dispute, where he has powers to intervene, grows out of control and revives inflation.
DP World has carried out economic modelling — but only released selected excerpts from that modelling to the media — suggesting the dispute is costing the nation more than $84 million a week, equating to 0.17 per cent of Australia's weekly gross product.
This is happening amid wider geopolitical turmoil, with Houthi attacks against container ships on the Red Sea resulting in disruptions and could drive up costs on European imports.
Can the federal IR minister intervene to end the dispute?
Minister Burke has said he wants both parties to come to an agreement, but others are calling on him to use his ministerial powers to force an outcome.
If the minister does step in, it will be Albanese government's first intervention in the biggest industrial dispute on the ports since the 1998 waterfront dispute.
"The waterfront companies are of foundational importance to Australian society," says Shipping Australia spokesman Jim Kelly.
"DP World is a fundamentally important company, to all of us. No matter how far away you live from the sea, that company's activities part of your life, whether you realise it or not.
"We hope Minister Burke will see the light and intervene in the dispute, but we don't really think that's going to happen."
Mr Kelly says Section 431 of the Fair Work Act 2009 gives the federal minister power to make a declaration, in writing, terminating protected industrial action … if the minister is satisfied that "the industrial action is threatening or could threaten to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it."
He's among a growing list of people including DP World's DP World Oceania vice-president Nicolaj Noes, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, Victorian Opposition Ports spokeswoman Roma Britnell and a number of importers and exporters who want Minister Burke and/or state governments to call in the Fair Work Commission for mandatory arbitration.
But Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) secretary Sally McManus has accused the opposition leader of behaving as the "union delegate for the sheikhs and sultans of Dubai" in urging the government to step in.
"The game the Dubai royal families want to play with us is to put as much pressure as possible on our government to try and bully them to not stand by working people, and not stand by the businesses of Australia," she said.
"We've got duopolies and got some companies that have a lot of market power and they've been able to use that monopsony power to keep wages low."
Why disruptions at Australian docks impact us all
But DP World, which handles about 40 per cent of the goods coming in and out of Australia, argues this is about protecting the Australian economy.
Currently, two major stevedore companies, Patrick and DP World, operate in Australia's three east coast ports (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane) as well as Fremantle.
According to DP World, the protected industrial action has pushed delivery times of some essential items behind by at least two to eight weeks, with a backlog of more than 50,000 containers sitting at Australian ports.
DP World's Nicolaj Noes says the company has been trying to reassure consumers that where possible, it will prioritise critical supplies, focusing on vessels with perishable foods, medical supplies and humanitarian aid.
"There is a significant amount of industrial action ongoing that rolls over week after week, and that means that we cannot serve all our customers," he noted.
Dr Richardson says DP World's modelling suggesting the dispute is costing the nation more than $84 million a week is feasible, noting "that degree of economic damage is potentially possible".
But DP World on Monday cited other figures in a media release suggesting that "the industrial action taken to date has cost the nation $34 million in lost productivity per day, building on an average impact of $84 million per week since the MUA's action commenced in September 2023".
A DP World spokesman clarified that "the $34 million a day figure is if the port doesn't operate per day — like we saw Friday", while the "$84 million a week figure is if we continue with bans and stoppages".
Dr Richardson noted that "$34 million a day is a pretty big figure" but could not comment in detail on the modelling without seeing its basis.
But there's other knock-on effects of disruptions that could cause economic havoc.
As containers keep piling up at our docks, the goods they contain could perish and/or result in shortages of goods from everything from electronics to medicines, says Dr Hadi Ghaderi, a logistics and supply chain expert at Swinburne University.
"Almost every consumer good is transported in containers," he notes.
"Higher logistical costs … could be passed onto the consumer and lead to higher inflation."
Joe Saina is from Brisbane-based fresh produce logistics group A.S. Barr imports. He says the fruits and vegetables they supply businesses is now perishing in containers at docks across the country.
"We've got fresh fruit and vegetables trying to arrive for the first week of Chinese New Year in February and they're being held up because of disputes at one of our major stevedores," he says.
Mr Saina says if items they supply perish, or take too long to arrive, that results in cost increases.
"If it misses the market, or there's a delay, for some reason, there's additional costs in the supply chain. And those additional costs, of course, come off the farmgate price.
"The victims are not only the fresh fruit and vegetable exporters and importers. But also, the shipping lines are being hurt because they've got ships that are being delayed, and they're having to re-forecast container movements and vessel movements."
Does there need to be national regulation of port access fees?
An additional complication in this current dispute is whether the fees being charged by companies like DP World are too high.
Former competition watchdog chairman Graeme Samuel has said the federal government needs to control prices charged by stevedores at the nation's container ports after DP World increased container fees by as much as 52 per cent.
What's known as "access charges" to move containers in and out of Australia's container ports have been soaring for years and will increase further in 2024.
DP World will charge $190.80 for every full container imported into Melbourne from January 1, up 21 per cent, while fees on exported containers will jump 52 per cent to $175.70.
Fees will also rise by almost 40 per cent on containers moved in and out of container ports in Sydney and Brisbane.
DP World has said the price rises are necessary to pay for investments in its business, but others argue national regulation is needed.
"I think where the transport operators do have a point is that the fees have massively escalated," says Shipping Australia's Jim Kelly.
"Like they went from almost nothing to a few hundred dollars. Now, there's been a series of successive price rises again and again. And that is difficult for them to manage.
"Given that the nature of how these price hikes have been imposed and escalated, I think there is a case for regulation, especially since there is effectively a duopoly.
"Now that's not to say the stevedores shouldn't be allowed to charge a price for their product that they're selling — they should. But that there might be a case where regulation of how [and] when prices can go up in relation to drop in containers."
Ports are currently regulated by state governments, while the ACCC monitors prices.
The ACCC, has previously called for greater regulatory oversight of container ports, saying in a December 2022 report that "container ports in Australia are regional monopolies with substantial market power" and that "in the absence of effective constraints, such monopolies have the incentive and ability to extract monopoly rents from port users who are unable to substitute their services".
It went on to state: "The ACCC considers that the current level of regulation at Australian container ports is not effective and the threat of further regulation in most states is not sufficiently credible to constrain container ports from exercising their market power."
But it has not advocated a recent position.
The ACCC has been contacted for comment.