OPINION: Australia's the last bastion in the global shipping land grab

IN A world where global shipping lines have steadily crept from sea to shore — owning and operating the very container terminals they once merely serviced — Australia remains one of the last major trading nations to hold the line.

But for how much longer?

CK Hutchison Holdings has confirmed that Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), through its terminal arm Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), is the primary investor in a consortium — led by BlackRock — looking to acquire 43 port assets globally. That includes Hutchison Ports Australia, marking a watershed moment. For the first time, a foreign shipping line would take direct control of an Australian container terminal — a move that, if it goes ahead, could reshape competition and reignite concerns over vertical integration, supply chain dominance, and industrial disruption.

A Global Blueprint — or a Cautionary Tale?

The global trend is clear: shipping lines are tightening control 1of the ports they rely on.

• Maersk, via APM Terminals, operates in over 75 locations across the United States, Netherlands, China, India, and Africa.
• CMA CGM, through Terminal Link, controls assets in France, Brazil, China, Vietnam, and across Europe and Africa.
• COSCO owns terminals in Greece, Belgium, Spain, China, and the UAE.
• Hapag-Lloyd and ONE have growing terminal interests across Europe, Asia, and the United States.
• TiL, MSC’s terminal arm, has a strategic presence throughout Europe, South America, and Asia.

Proponents argue this model streamlines logistics and lowers costs. But in practice, it can distort competition. Regulators in Europe, Asia, and North America have flagged concerns over discriminatory access and preferential treatment for affiliated shipping lines.

Australia’s Firewall and the Cracks Emerging

To date, Australia’s four major stevedores — Patrick, DP World, Victoria International Container Terminal (VICT), and Hutchison — remain independent of shipping line ownership. This neutrality has preserved competition, with terminals and carriers negotiating on relatively equal footing.

But that balance is under pressure. If MSC secures Hutchison, it may set a precedent for further integration. It also tightens control across the supply chain — from vessel to quay to warehouse — reinforcing global dominance at every node.

Some argue this could benefit beneficial cargo owners, allowing negotiation of all carrier-related charges — including terminal fees — through a single entity. Larger shippers may find value in simplified pricing and coordination. But for others, especially SMEs, this could reduce bargaining power and undermine transparent pricing.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Productivity Commission have both already identified market failure in the container freight sector, pointing to unregulated landside charges as a clear example. Both have called for reform — including a Mandatory Code to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of market power — a move strongly backed by industry, but yet to receive a meaningful response from the government.

Foreign Control, Local Fallout

Industrial relations also demand scrutiny.

The 2023 standoff between DP World and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) halted operations for months — and that was with an independent terminal operator. The arrival of foreign-owned shipping lines in operational control adds a new dimension, where decisions are driven by offshore boards, not local negotiations.

Similar dynamics have played out internationally. In the United States, protracted disputes between unions and terminal operators led to severe disruptions across the US East & Gulf Coast ports, driven by automation, staffing, and wage disputes. The situation highlighted how industrial flashpoints can quickly escalate when trust between labour and management breaks down.

There’s a growing concern that such governance structures could intensify conflict over pay, rostering, and automation. These are not theoretical risks — they’re live issues on the waterfront.

This Is a Strategic Moment, Not Just a Sale

Any proposed acquisition of terminal assets by a foreign-owned shipping line cannot be treated as a simple commercial handover. It requires close scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Board  (FIRB) and the ACCC, with attention to long-term impacts on competition, transparency, service access, and national supply chain resilience.

Once this precedent is set, it may prove difficult to unwind. Australia’s freight sector is already grappling with escalating charges and concentrated control. Allowing ocean carriers to take the reins on terminal infrastructure risks amplifying those challenges and dismantling what's left of competitive neutrality.

This isn’t about resisting change — it’s about managing it wisely. The line between shipping line and stevedore is vanishing fast. Before it disappears entirely, Australia must decide whether that shift serves the national interest — or whether it’s time to draw a firmer line through appropriate regulatory safeguards and decisive federal action.