Confusion and uncertainty casting a cloud on future of Ports of Auckland

The Maritime Union has warned how uncertainty around new proposals for Ports of Auckland is a threat to the stability of the Auckland and the wider economy.

The Mar­itime Union has warned how uncer­tain­ty around new pro­pos­als for Ports of Auck­land is a threat to the sta­bil­i­ty of the Auck­land and the wider econ­o­my.

Mar­itime Union of New Zealand Nation­al Sec­re­tary Craig Har­ri­son says there is grow­ing con­cern about the direc­tion of the port debate.

The Auck­land Coun­cil is con­sid­er­ing options behind closed doors to relo­cate the Ports to make way for ‘water fea­tures.’

It is also review­ing options to sell an oper­at­ing lease for the Ports to a glob­al net­work ter­mi­nal oper­a­tor, and has com­mis­sioned con­sul­tants to seek expres­sions of inter­est.

Mr Har­ri­son says there seemed to be no clear idea as to what the end goal was, the costs involved, and how the plan would work in prac­tice.

He says it is unclear how simul­ta­ne­ous­ly pri­va­tiz­ing and relo­cat­ing the Port is going to work let alone the pro­posed water­front rede­vel­op­ment.

“This lat­est pro­pos­al for pools and bar­bi­es on the water­front is sim­ply not seri­ous.”

He says it makes no sense for the Coun­cil to com­mit to mas­sive expen­di­ture on water­front rede­vel­op­ment when claim­ing Auck­land was in finan­cial cri­sis and cut­ting the bud­get for parks and libraries for the rest of Auck­land.

“It is unclear what is the pri­ma­ry motive – is it to come up with short term band aid for Auckland’s finan­cial issues, is it to hand over com­mer­cial real estate to devel­op­ers, or is it to pro­vide salt water pools for well off cen­tral city dwellers?”

Mr Har­ri­son says the pri­ma­ry pur­pose of the Ports of Auck­land was to facil­i­tate trade and the Port was doing a good job at this.

He says on the hoof deci­sion mak­ing with no clear strat­e­gy for future oper­a­tions was a dan­ger­ous way to approach the future of New Zealand’s major import port.

“Remem­ber that any of these schemes will add to con­ges­tion and ris­ing costs for busi­ness and con­sumers if they dis­rupt port oper­a­tions.”

The Ports is going through the a peri­od of growth and sta­bil­i­ty under new lead­er­ship and it was a pri­or­i­ty not to under­mine this pos­i­tive progress, says Mr Har­ri­son.

“The cost of the failed automa­tion project of the pre­vi­ous man­age­ment was esti­mat­ed at a $1.2 bil­lion hit to the econ­o­my, and anoth­er failed exper­i­ment could cause even greater harm.”

Mr Har­ri­son says any attempt to move or relo­cate port oper­a­tions would be an extreme­ly com­plex, expen­sive and long term project that need­ed to be part of a wider ports strat­e­gy.

He says the North­port option is cur­rent­ly a fan­ta­sy giv­en the lack of infra­struc­ture, no exist­ing rail link, no coastal ship­ping plan, and already con­gest­ed road links that were vul­ner­a­ble to extreme weath­er events.

“Yet we are talk­ing about effec­tive­ly adding thou­sands more truck moves on some of the busiest roads in the coun­try if we go down this track.”

Mr Har­ri­son says New Zealand needs a nation­al ports strat­e­gy that inte­grates coastal ship­ping and rail, with a focus on sup­ply chain resilience in a volatile glob­al envi­ron­ment.

He says the Ports of Auck­land should remain in pub­lic own­er­ship as a strate­gic asset that was cen­tral to Auck­land and New Zealand’s econ­o­my.

 

Share the Post:

Related Posts