AUSTRALIAN cargo owners may soon hear more about strengthened disclosure arrangements for terminal landside charges.
Greater transparency is welcome. But improved notice of when and by how much a charge will increase does not answer the underlying question: how did substantial terminal costs come to be imposed directly on parties that have no commercial choice about the terminal or container depot they must use?
The Australian Shippers Alliance first raised this issue with the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on 20 March 2026. After following the pathway identified by government, ASA lodged a detailed complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on 30 June.
The complaint asks the ACCC to examine the interaction between Part X of the Competition and Consumer Act, the historical commercial arrangements between shipping lines and stevedores, and the subsequent transfer of substantial cost recovery to landside operators, importers and exporters.
The ACCC’s own monitoring reports have documented the transformation of the terminal charging model and the billions of dollars now being recovered through terminal access charges.
What remains unanswered is whether the statutory protections available to Australian shippers operated as intended while that transformation occurred.
ASA deliberately refrained from conducting a public campaign while the complaint was being considered. We believed the responsible approach was to allow the ACCC and the Department sufficient time to examine the evidence and apply the legislation.
More than three months after the complaint was lodged, ASA received a verbal indication that an investigation would not proceed and that a formal response would follow.
Following further correspondence, the ACCC advised that it has not considered a complaint under the relevant Part X provisions for about 20 years and is now examining the procedural and statutory requirements applying to its decision.
ASA welcomes the fact that those requirements are being considered carefully. However, nearly seven months have now passed since the matter was first raised with government, and cargo owners still have no formal determination.
During that period, these charges have continued to be imposed every day and passed through Australian supply chains to importers, exporters, businesses and ultimately consumers.
Any expanded voluntary disclosure framework may provide better notice and predictability.
It will not determine whether the existing charging structure developed consistently with the statutory framework. Nor will it address the absence of effective commercial discipline where charges are imposed on captive landside users.
The two issues should not be confused.
Disclosure concerns how charges are announced.
ASA’s complaint concerns how the charging model developed, whether the protections available to shippers were observed and what should now be done about it.
Cargo owners have followed every pathway identified by government.
They are entitled to a prompt, reasoned decision.
ASA will provide a further public update when the ACCC’s formal position is received.
If you are a cargo owner or industry participant with documented experience of how terminal handling charges, terminal access charges and empty-container-park charges, have negatively impacted your business over the past eight or so years, we would be pleased to hear from you.