UPDATE 11 September:
The Newcastle Herald reported on 11 September that DP World had again labelled the Baird port levy as the determining factor on investment. The Ports Minister, Melinda Pavey, was reported as saying that
The hapless CEO of PON's rejoinder calls for full disclosure, for reasons stated below ~
The naiveté of the Minister’s statement and Carmony’s rejoinder lies in their refusal to think logical logistics – DP World was in the same boat.
The reality in 2003 was that the conferences had decided to avoid Adelaide and Newcastle; but the strategic position of Ports Botany and Kembla has changed so much and the Minister is avoiding telling the truth.
Professor Green is the Minister’s secret weapon as he studiously avoids reality. We await the Herald’s epiphany as well.
UPDATE: on 27 August Carmody repeated previous errors (reduced traffic in Sydney being one) when he announced
He said they were unsolicited, can that be true? - no outreach by PON? Mistruths repeated months after PON's canards, including unreliability of Deloittes, were revealed. We should see the prospectus to ascertain if PON has told the truth about policy questions described herein and IP challenges and complaints going to Governments and the PON Boards.
The Port crisis in NSW reflects inexperience and low expertise as well as populist political interventions. The targets have to be Mike Baird and Gladys Berejiklian as well as TfNSW, iNSW and iA, the Greater Sydney Commission, and the Botany/Moorebank cartel.
Whereas Newcastle was betrayed by Premiers Carr and Baird in 2003 and 2013, now it is being dudded by its own Port Corporation which had no infrastructure plan and now is trying to wriggle-out of its embarrassment, having been birched through this website and correspondence. (The embarrassment spreads to the Chamber, ARTC and TfNSW).
It appears that the company lacks the evidentiary, analytical and policy skills it needs to achieve its own objectives of successful diversification and integration with the regional economy.
Also, it might be repeating Kembla’s over-investment direction in its rapid augmentation approach – without meeting the NSW Ports Authority’s stringent conditions; while the community lacks leadership and won’t find it in PON any more than in the City Council, RDA or Business Chamber.
PON cannot bring forward the approval of a terminal to next year; I think I can. It had no infrastructure plan and is stealing mine. I am justified in protecting my Intellectual Property and deserve to be paid properly – so lifting performance, quality and urgency.
Towards the end of his first year, Green’s is a record of failure as recounted below; and he has shown neither remorse nor adaptation. As the Board’s and region’s hopes are receding and I have no prospect of fair and professional treatment from him, all choices are exhausted except for the Board to protect its shareholders’ interests and replace Green.
At the beginning of May, I circulated a position statement to Ministers and others, from which this quote was drawn, the “critical issues” being missed by PON:
While Port Botany grows even without commensurate road and railing capacity, the regional cities will get their terminals when Hell freezes over if they keep going with tired ideas under the same tutelage as Port Botany.
Neither satellite realises they are being cannibalised by their Sydney and Western Sydney siblings which are aligned with Federal and State Coalition Governments. Neither have been willing to consider the independent expert. They will not combine approaches.
The immediate situation is seriously awry from being a steady path from confusion and deceit towards robust regional improvement. The problems are known but are being exacerbated, not fixed. The challenges include:
This may surprise you but  I don’t disagree at all about the importance of inland rail. Nor does PON which is working closely with  ARTC and  others on the connections that would make sense in the context of a container terminal.
The problem you have is that no one is engaging with you because  you insist on being paid for your opinion on how this might be done. And maybe you have some other ideas as well. Can I respectfully suggest you would have far more impact if you were prepared to share your ideas  openly like most other people contributing to our cause. No one has a monopoly of wisdom in this area. I for one would be only too delighted to publicly acknowledge your authorship of any ideas that are taken up if that’s your concern.
It just seems a shame to me that you sit there down south  taking potshots at everyone when you have  so much expertise and experience to offer. I’ve got a thick skin so don’t mind the potshots but I’d much rather have you  wielding the sword or pen on our behalf.
We’ll be making a  very positive announcement shortly on the container terminal strategy and it would be wonderful if you could  join the discussion in similar vein at that point and beyond.
What do you think? Are you ready for a  more collaborative role?
15. PON posted artist’s impressions of container ships entering and in a Newcastle Terminal where PON has no infrastructure plan, no planning approval, no economic case capable of meeting Ports NSW’s formal requirements, and no idea of scale economics in the supply chain context. This is the assertion of “spin” in a context dominated by deceit – as I said on Radio, this time “Newcastle is dudding itself”. I also pointed to Kembla’s situation and the ban on trucking, in response to media concern in the previous week.
This circus has been going since 2012, with the industry agreeing with my reports but asking that I publish free, for their usage. Green knew that and my attitude, which is – bastards …. The consequences include continuing disarray and mistakes in industry work; and the increasing domination of populist politics in undermining solid logistics and “pipeline” economics. The next morning I replied:
No: I get paid for the value of my change quality work, finis. It is far superior to PON’s.
You pay your staff, Deloittes, sponsees et al.
$100 m for a wee business case seems to now be the yardstick, I resent anyone saying I should be treated unfairly.
My insights are not to be used by PON in any way at all.
Either come back with a real offer or do something useful with your life. I’ve been treated by you as a mushroom too long.
Detailed responses to Green’s email [to the points numbered within square brackets]:
1. Rail Bypass etc: No one was talking Inland Rail until I added that insight as part of my strategic report; and Green started after I told him I’d copyrighted Prof Lee’s and my route concept. His change to Inland Rail from his long-term disagreement/rejection of me (being the first person to raise the idea and copyrighted it), is unacceptable. He is bound to his stupid by-pass as was ARTC (Chamber submission dated 12 April ’18). Green’s submission actually said the bypass could be part of Inland Rail! ABC Radio host Paul Bevan said that both Green and Carmody had pushed the bypass on-air at the time of Carmody’s appointment (which was at the end of May ’18). (The same copyright applies to Calfas, socio-economic arguments at Botany, high-voltage A/C, work with Kembla, and scale economics etc – all points missed by PON, the Chamber, RDA, NCC et al.)
Green wrote on 11 April ’18: “would be useful if you can integrate Newcastle container planning including Newcastle-PK dedicated freight rail corridor via Eastern Creek **. Otherwise PB role may depend heavily on trucks on WestConnex with $60-80 tolls”:
· He didn’t understand my Eastern Seabord Rail Freight Development Plan as he hasn’t signed the Confidentiality Deed
· The comment on PB is ignorant of facts, same comment, including how would Botany be supported – by closure?!?
· I would NEVER integrate that joke of a corridor, this is appalling illogicality
** In my Freight Plan from 2012 – again, no one has attributed or paid for that so I’m roaring
2. ARTC: Secret discussions, to what end – more mistakes? Green gives the impression of trying to be cute after being smacked for incompetence, unacceptable and they have been so informed
3. Others: presumably Greg Cameron and/or additional consultants which I will resent and vigorously critique. Enough obvious blunders have been perpetrated through amateur daydreaming. If Carmody’s ex-employer, Maersk, they will be informed of the problems as DP World had been – DPW had the chance of advancing their own commercial prospects but refused to.
PON is hunting for cruise liners but the Australian’s recent special feature on regional liner destinations did not even mention Newcastle. PON is proposing a variety of new facilities but I question whether they understand market economics, having got the container catchment so wrong (see website). This happened at Kembla where the development plan for higher throughput meant higher charges, meaning even the port’s owners sent their coal to Newcastle via an incredibly inefficient route, meaning less throughput!
4. Does Green live in a bubble? Plumbers, consultants, politicians and others get paid, even he gets paid regardless of judgements of little or no added value. I gave the industry the option of paying for my work as Globestar did in 2003 on behalf of Shipping Australia, or experiencing the “opportunity costs” which Green is now. His attitude is primordial and out of touch with the real world. It shows he made a mistake at the beginning, has been smacked and is now cheating his way out (as if). As for other ideas – this is idiotic, inconsistent with 
5. “No one has a monopoly” – how would he know? Again, PON has been found out and is leeching the community as though that will evade my copyrights
6. Potshots: he also enjoys them? Political and moral suasion is the only mode of persuasion Green has left me, so this is a consequence of his own behaviour and attitudes
7. So much expertise and experience: refused to find out via Deed of Confidentiality so is fishing? Obviously greater than PON’s, the industry sectors’, TfNSW, iA, PON, the Chamber, ARTC’s etc, therefore more valuable. Green didn’t even know about the econometric study of the Botany line
8. On our behalf: rubbish, he refuses to pay for his company’s interests, he is illogical
9. A very positive announcement: of successful theft of IP? His own resignation? Maersk? NSW Government faux-promises? Better artist’s impressions?
10. Join the discussion: more of the above, rubbish, the normal sequence is to table quality work before consultation which also would show competence and leadership
11. More collaborative: he’s begging after pissing me about for 4 months - see especially my email of 24 May – “I’m a lot annoyed I’m doing a much better job than anyone else and no one will pay me. This is the third and last time – I’m going to start to bite”.
In conclusion, PON is tied to the bypass and unsuccessful political approach as based on the decrepit Deloittes report. It shows the same deficient attitudes as do Ports Australia, Shipping Australia, the Australian Logistics Council and the NSW Business Chamber. [NB schedule of disparities in submissions to TfNSW & Calfas being held back but ready to go on website.]
His emails illustrate Green’s mistakes and now his evasions of fair and sensible practice. The new CEO of PON is a PR manager, not an operative or analyst, judging by what is known of his history. (He has not replied to polite questions.) Newcastle has had too much cant and deceit, and now needs a positive, professional can-do logistical and political person to lead its further development.
That is a judgement which Mr Carmody can address but his repetition of deceit on 27 August must lead to questions of his economic nous and willingness to move out of the spin world into solid achievement and community engagement.
ARTC has been conflicted all along and must now admit transparency and reversal of exclusion.
Green and others should focus on successful outcomes instead of narcissistic game-playing.