‘Show us the numbers’ on port privatisation

The Mar­itime Union says the May­or of Auck­land should “show us the num­bers” about Auckland’s finances before push­ing port pri­vati­sa­tion as the easy answer to its prob­lems.

The Mar­itime Union was respond­ing to claims by the May­or report­ed in the media last week about the need for ser­vice cuts and asset sales as a solu­tion to ris­ing rates. 

Mar­itime Union Auck­land Branch Local 13 Sec­re­tary Rus­sell Mayn says Auck­land ratepay­ers are aware of pres­sures on City finances, but want to see some hard evi­dence as to how pri­vati­sa­tion is a solu­tion.

“At the moment it seems large­ly to be doom and gloom tac­tics to try and gen­er­ate a pan­ic and jus­ti­fy an exist­ing agen­da.”

He says that sell­ing prof­itable strate­gic assets comes with sub­stan­tial costs of its own.

Mr Mayn says a report com­mis­sioned by the Union showed how port pri­vati­sa­tion in Aus­tralia had led to major increas­es in port charges as pri­vate own­ers sought to recoup their invest­ment.

These charges would be passed onto busi­ness­es and con­sumers, he says.

Mr Mayn says the Port of Auck­land is mak­ing good returns and has a very pos­i­tive future with its cur­rent own­er­ship mod­el.

“Pri­vati­sa­tion of assets would lead to Auck­lan­ders los­ing the fam­i­ly sil­ver, and then fac­ing increased costs through prof­it goug­ing at a pri­vate port.”

Mr Mayn says it makes no sense to be talk­ing about major water­front beau­ti­fi­ca­tion projects on port land while at the same time claim­ing that the City was broke.

“The Mar­itime Union under­stands the pres­sures on Auckland’s finances, but sell­ing off the prime assets of the City for a one-off sug­ar hit does not address the long term issues and would lead to all sorts of con­se­quences.”

He says one imme­di­ate cost sav­ing would be can­celling over­seas con­sul­tants being paid hefty fees to build the pri­vati­sa­tion case.