NZ | Ports + Infrastructure

[seaphorm]

and so it starts...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...reaches-Sydney

[IThomas]

Port Development Plan, from 2012 to 2055+

image hosted on flickr

Auckland di James F Clay, su Flickr

Ports of Auckland is a key part of New Zealand's supply chain and trading infrastructure. The Port handles 40% of New Zealand's total imports and 21% of New Zealand's total exports, by value. POAL is the dominant player in the New Zealand container market, holding 60% of the upper North Island market and 36% of the total New Zealand market. By value, Ports of Auckland handles the greatest throughput of international trade of any New Zealand port facility: some $26.4 billion annually. In 2011 POAL, in conjunction with Waterfront Auckland, produced updated port development concept plans for the Auckland seaport, for inclusion in the Draft Waterfront Plan. These concept drawings reflect the development of POAL’s thinking since the most recent Port Development Plan was produced in 2008, and show at a high level how the port might develop, in five year increments through to 2055 (although timing is subject to a number of variables including the rate of volume growth and the rate of availability of fill material for reclamation). POAL anticipates consulting on and preparing an updated Port Development Plan document in 2012. The Draft Waterfront Plan recognises the strategic role the Port of Auckland plays in the economy of the city, and how the success of the Auckland region and New Zealand depends to some degree on its port’s ability to efficiently handle imports and exports. POAL aims to strike a balance between operational needs and public interest in accessing waterfront land. The key focus is on providing the required capacity for future growth in container and break-bulk (non-containerised) cargo volumes in the eastern port while freeing up land in the centre and west of the CBD waterfront for public access. POAL's throughput in 2010/11 was 894,383 TEU and this is expected to grow by 5% on an average every year. In line with this strategy, POAL believes it will be able to sell Captain Cook wharf for public use and redevelopment in the future. However, the release of Captain Cook wharf is dependent upon the future extension of Bledisloe wharf, for which resource consents have yet to be obtained, and on the construction of replacement storage facilities for customers who are currently serviced at this wharf. For planning purposes a ten year timeframe is considered realistic. The extension and reclamation works suggested at Bledisloe wharf could be the ideal location for the disposal of the spoil generated from the Auckland Council’s and NZTA's other projects such as the cross-harbour tunnel and the CBD-Mt Eden rail tunnel loop. In addition to reclamation works, technology plays an important role in the development of the Port. A phased approach to the introduction of newer technology such as Automated Stacking Cranes is proposed. The introduction of these cranes will serve to further intensify operations in the eastern port.

[KLK]

Ah - the Wharfies and their union showing their true colours today I see.

Stopping people entering the wharf area (incl. someone from TVNZ)

Physical and verbal intimidation of others

A cruise ship was stranded for 2hrs because the staff on the pilot vessel couldn't access the wharf

Wllie jackson calling for "militant action"

All we need now is for the wharfies to be stealing off ships already docked in the harbour - things to decorate their living rooms with - and we would be back to their heyday of 20th century.

I am happy for them to protest, and the claims of physical intimidation do require substantiation. But they have no right whatsoever to stop people going in and out of that port area. None.

Where are the police.

[seaphorm]

that's a bit of a one sided judgement there... one of the biggest problems in this situation is that there are proud opinionated people on both sides who aren't prepared to look at the situation from the other's point of view.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by seaphorm

that's a bit of a one sided judgement there....

That the Wharfies should not be the gatekeepers of who goes onto the Docks when they decide to go on strike? That they should not decide when cruise passengers can land in Auckland?One sided?

I'm not against their right to protest or go on strike. But port business has to go on in the meantime. Them physically and verbally intimidating people to stop them doing that is unacceptable.

There is a reason why these guys have always got significantly better pay and benefits than almost all other non-skilled (and skilled) workers and we are seeing it here. Because their role (not necessarily those workers specifically) in NZ's survival (as an export nation) is crucial. They can literaly hold the country to ransom. When that bargaining chip is taken from them (i.e. temporary workers can be be bought in), then guys like Willie Jackson advocate violence and there are only too many willing to oblige.

Again, feel free to exercise your right to protest if you think your working conditions aren't satisfactory. Go through the appropriate channels. If you think legally the port cannot employ temporary workers, explore the legal avenue. But surely no-one agrees with the ugly behaviour we have heard of over the recent days.That's a throwback to another time.

[seaphorm]

Originally Posted by KLK

That the Wharfies should not be the gatekeepers of who goes onto the Docks when they decide to go on strike? That they should not decide when cruise passengers can land in Auckland?One sided?

I'm not against their right to protest or go on strike. But port business has to go on in the meantime. Them physically and verbally intimidating people to stop them doing that is unacceptable.

There is a reason why these guys have always got significantly better pay and benefits than almost all other non-skilled (and skilled) workers and we are seeing it here. Because their role (not necessarily those workers specifically) in NZ's survival (as an export nation) is crucial. They can literaly hold the country to ransom. When that bargaining chip is taken from them (i.e. temporary workers can be be bought in), then guys like Willie Jackson advocate violence and there are only too many willing to oblige.

Again, feel free to exercise your right to protest if you think your working conditions aren't satisfactory. Go through the appropriate channels. If you think legally the port cannot employ temporary workers, explore the legal avenue. But surely no-one agrees with the ugly behaviour we have heard of over the recent days.That's a throwback to another time.

They've been going through the appropriate channels since September then (from their point of view) the other party simply ditches them therefore the only option they have left is to step up action. When people angrily protest there's going to be scuffles. This is their livelihoods - the food on their tables. It's not tiddly winks. In times past the army were brought in... we're not quite there yet. All I've seen so far is media over hype.

I can see the other side of this too. The ports do have real concerns and those come from the council's doubling of their profit requirements... given they have already cut prices to the bone the council has left them with only one real option for further savings... The blame for this sits squarely at the feet of Len Brown and his CEO.

The last sentence you've added there is enlightening. In recent weeks we've seen industrial action on a scale not seen in more than a decade. There's this waterfront dispute which has seen fire fighters, nurses, teachers etc come out in support... Then there's the Afco lockout and the aged care workers and it increasingly looks like you're going to see white collar government workers join in too. We've been in a period where wages have not kept up with inflation for 3-4 years now. Increasing reliance on 'flexible' contract work in a high unemployment environment is putting more and more pressure on workplaces... You don't get mass industrial action across multiple sectors because things are going ok, or because there's all of a sudden mass greed amongst workers. You get it because there's pressure on employers to maintain profitability in a stagnant period by ruling out inflationary wage increases or even pushing for wage drops to make up for sluggish financial returns. Naturally employees, no matter what sector they're from, don't want to see their standard of living drop or the return for their hard work fall away - this has been happening. This doesn't make industrial action a throwback... it makes it the reality of New Zealand in 2012.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by seaphorm

The last sentence you've added there is enlightening. In recent weeks we've seen industrial action on a scale not seen in more than a decade. There's this waterfront dispute which has seen fire fighters, nurses, teachers etc come out in support... Then there's the Afco lockout and the aged care workers and it increasingly looks like you're going to see white collar government workers join in too. We've been in a period where wages have not kept up with inflation for 3-4 years now. Increasing reliance on 'flexible' contract work in a high unemployment environment is putting more and more pressure on workplaces... You don't get mass industrial action across multiple sectors because things are going ok, or because there's all of a sudden mass greed amongst workers. You get it because there's pressure on employers to maintain profitability in a stagnant period by ruling out inflationary wage increases or even pushing for wage drops to make up for sluggish financial returns. Naturally employees, no matter what sector they're from, don't want to see their standard of living drop or the return for their hard work fall away - this has been happening. This doesn't make industrial action a throwback... it makes it the reality of New Zealand in 2012.

The "throwback" remark was more about the intimidatory tactics apparently used - a bit more than scuffles. Strike action will always be a part of the landscape and on the basis that we won't be living in a worker's utopia anytime soon, it should always be an option available.

But yes, it looks like we'll be seeing more of this action than we have for some time, for the reasons you outline.

I read an opinion piece in the Herald yesterday that talked referred to POAL and one other outfit who were laying off workers, and lamented the "breaking of the social contract with workers". I understand the sentiment, but where did it say everyone would be offered the same job and the same entitlements for life? There does seem to be a "I deserve" mentality in NZ. Perhaps (relatively speaking) we have been living in a bubble.

There has to be some bad times to go with the good, and there will be sacrifices at that time. Sounds callous, but there's no point avoiding reality.

[deepred]

Originally Posted by KLK

But yes, it looks like we'll be seeing more of this action than we have for some time, for the reasons you outline.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the only industrial dispute in NZ where foreign unions have gotten involved big-time. It's that big, basically. In comparison, the Oceania and AFFCO disputes are largely local affairs.

It also raises questions about who ordered the 12% ROI, when comparable ports return more like 6-8%; and the CCO structure put in place by Rodney Hide under the pretext of eliminating 'council interference', but in practice more like allowing sub-par and/or old boys' management to be unaccountable to their majority shareholder.

There are parallels with the Aussie watersiders' dispute in 1998, and for all its bitterness, it ultimately ended with a middle ground settlement.

I should also add there's as much, if not more so, of an 'I deserve' attitude amongst senior executives like Tony Marryatt towards 'internationally competitive' salaries - more like 'cargo cult management' salaries - which owe much to the size of egos and organisations, and little to actual performance.

[deepred]

And the plot thickens...

Fury after port worker's details leaked to blogger

[Dazzle]

Nah...they are all thick enough already !!!!!!!!!

[seaphorm]

Originally Posted by deepred

I should also add there's as much, if not more so, of an 'I deserve' attitude amongst senior executives like Tony Marryatt towards 'internationally competitive' salaries - more like 'cargo cult management' salaries - which owe much to the size of egos and organisations, and little to actual performance.

yeah i didn't want to go down that route... but there's been plenty of coverage about value of management vs their increasingly large returns in the papers of late... there's definitely an issue there... although i can't see how it would be changed without some rather reckless government interference.

there's been an interesting sea-change in public opinion over the last decade and perhaps we're seeing the generational shift that was bound to come about as a result of the employment contracts act.

when the act first came in it was met with mass demonstrations by tens of thousands of employees. in the late 1990s when the government tried to put firemen onto individual contracts there was enough public support for their stand to get a referendum on the issue.

but now so many people have grown up in an individual contract environment, without ever being a part of unions or union wage negotiations that a lot of people simply don't understand either the point of unions or the reasons for waterfront workers being upset about the change in their contract status. the reaction from large swathes of the population seems to be along the lines of "everyone else is struggling and doing what they can to keep work so they should be happy for what they have" i wonder at what point our population became so submissive to the power of corporate shareholders.

i'm not a union member or even particularly pro union... but i do wonder what we're in for over the next few years as more contract workers feel the brunt of shareholder demands without the protection of collective negotiating bodies...

[NZ1]

Originally Posted by deepred

It also raises questions about who ordered the 12% ROI, when comparable ports return more like 6-8%

The 12% figure is return on equity not ROI. While this may seem to be arguing semantics, there are (as I'm sure you know) some very large differences from an accounting perspective, and it also skews the results of comparisons to other ports.

POAL arrived at the 12% figure by conducting a study of foreign ports with similar trading conditions, which provided an average of 13% ROE. They concluded that this lower figure was most definitely achievable by the proposed outcome required in 2016.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by seaphorm

the reaction from large swathes of the population seems to be along the lines of "everyone else is struggling and doing what they can to keep work so they should be happy for what they have" i wonder at what point our population became so submissive to the power of corporate shareholders.

From my perspective, and I am talking specifically about the wharfies here, its hard to be symapthetic to a group who, for decades, have received incomes much greater than the average worker, for doing (generally) less hours, in an unskilled job (in that no skills are required at entry level), where nepotism is rife, just because they can - because the ports are so vital to NZ's well-being and they can strangle them at any time.

Teachers, medical workers, firefighters - different issue. But the wharfies? They have had it good for a very long time. The gravy train is up.

Tauranga Ports is the industry benchmark now - its not unreasonable to ask them to fall into line with industry practice.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by deepred

To the best of my knowledge, this is the only industrial dispute in NZ where foreign unions have gotten involved big-time. It's that big, basically. In comparison, the Oceania and AFFCO disputes are largely local affairs.

Could be wrong, but I thought this is how wharf lockouts worked all over the western world. They make a call to their corresponding group and say "don't unload any ships coming from Auckland"

Its a lot easier than teachers asking their counterparts in another country to join their strike action.

[seaphorm]

Originally Posted by KLK

Teachers, medical workers, firefighters - different issue. But the wharfies? They have had it good for a very long time. The gravy train is up.

once again... it sounds a touch like sour grapes... which doesn't really have a place in the discussion. "they have had it good so now should be punished like the rest of us"... it's an idiotic argument.

they have had good wages because they have had a collective bargaining power that much of the rest of new zealand have voluntarily given up. it's not their fault if you've accepted less than you're worth.

Originally Posted by KLK

Tauranga Ports is the industry benchmark now - its not unreasonable to ask them to fall into line with industry practice.

the way in which workers globally have backed the auckland workers goes against this statement. even at tauranga, workers have tried to support those in auckland despite being happy with where they are themselves.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by seaphorm

once again... it sounds a touch like sour grapes... which doesn't really have a place in the discussion. "they have had it good so now should be punished like the rest of us"... it's an idiotic argument.

Who said anything about punishment? About being treated "like the rest of us"? I'll refrain from calling the jump to such conclusions "idiotic"....

Its about an archaic business model which is unsustainable, or severly restricting a business in the face of compeitition.

Originally Posted by seaphorm

they have had good wages because they have had a collective bargaining power that much of the rest of new zealand have voluntarily given up. it's not their fault if you've accepted less than you're worth..

As I am (apparently) classified in the top 1.5% of earners in NZ, I'm quite happy with what I bargained for. That is not to brag, but to indicate that as my salary is well above the numbers (even the high ones) quoted for wharfies, my position is not one of sour grapes, which has been suggested twice.

Regarding collective bargaining's demise, I think you will find the wharf workers have always had significantly better working conditions than those in other unions who have retained collective bargaining, let alone those that have discarded it, precisely for the reasons I outlined in a previous post. 21wks paid leave for a sick partner? (see today's news)

Originally Posted by seaphorm

the way in which workers globally have backed the auckland workers goes against this statement. even at tauranga, workers have tried to support those in auckland despite being happy with where they are themselves.

That's just solidaity within an industry, which should be expected and, I guess, encouraged. It doesn't preclude members being on different packages. And I would guess not all Tauranga workers are in support.

[deepred]

I suspect current anti-union sentiment is attributable to two major factors: weakening middle classes in the Anglosphere, and major companies 'hiring half the working class to kill the other half' (in the supposed words of the American railroad robber baron Jay Gould during the Great Southwest rail strike in thelate 1800s).

This all reminds me of economist Robert Reich's video, The Truth About the Economy...

[IThomas]

EDIT

[IThomas]

Lyttelton port scraps $25m coal plan

A $25 million coal yard expansion planned by Lyttelton Port of Christchurch has been scrapped.
The 10-hectare expansion plan to deal with stockpiles of Solid Energy and Pike River coal pre-dated the earthquakes.

LPC chief executive Peter Davie said the withdrawal of the coal yard expansion resource consent application was made last week. The initial expansion plan was first signalled around August 2009.
In April 2010, LPC applied to the Environment Court for a total of 13 consent applications relating to the proposed expansion of LPC's coal handling facility at Te Awaparahi Bay.

While the coal yard expansion was no longer planned, the port still had the general intention to expand its existing operations eastwards towards Te Awaparahi Bay, Davie said.
After the earthquakes of September 2010, February and June 2011, the port's focus was to keep customer services operating and to ensure that vital goods and commodities moved safely through the port.

The halt to the plan was not related to a stoush between the port and its insurers over delays in payouts towards the repair of the port and its wharves, Davie said
But these significant earthquakes had overtaken some of this project and LPC was now focused on earthquake recovery and rebuild. No significant funds had been spent on the coal yard plan.
"We are looking at alternative ways within the existing port land area to handle future growth," he said.

The port was also working closely with Solid Energy on changes to stockpiling methods at the port.
Meanwhile, LPC continued to work on a separate 10-hectare reclamation, using rubble from Christchurch's quake-hit central business district to create a platform for port operations.
This area could not be used for coal storage unless there was some subsequent application for a change of use, Davie said.

[IThomas]

Rethink on ports strategy

Auckland Council is going back to basics on its port strategy, commissioning a study that could reconfigure port investment and transport infrastructure in the upper North Island and even considering totally new port sites. Greater co-operation between the ports of Northland, Auckland and Tauranga and more efficient allocation of capital are among possible outcomes once the study is complete.
The council is commissioning consultants to estimate the future flows of imports and exports through the ports in the upper North Island and the road and rail networks and associated transport hubs. "The upper North Island must be able to meet short and long-term growth requirements of an export-driven economy. The capacity of its ports and the associated freight transport system are key elements in the ability ... to achieve this. There is considerable debate on what the most optimal future port infrastructure, configuration and freight transport supply chain arrangements should be," a background briefing document for consultants said.

Merchant banker Michael Lorimer of Grant Samuel, who has been involved in the preparation of commercial reports on Ports of Auckland and is a vocal critic of the way its current industrial dispute has been handled, said he hoped the report would pave the way for more co-operation between the ports, particularly Auckland and Tauranga. What form that co-operation would take would be "anybody's guess", he said, but would not necessarily involve a formal merger of the Auckland and Tauranga port companies. It could take the form of operational agreements or other arrangements to manage trade in the most efficient manner. "And reduced costs could then be passed on to importers and exporters," he said.

It is significant that although the report is being commissioned by Auckland Council, it is doing so on behalf of the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance, a planning group for the Whangarei, Northland, Auckland, Hamilton, Waikato, Tauranga and Bay of Plenty councils. Lorimer said the report would help plug a significant gap left by the Government's failure to adopt a national ports strategy. It could be particularly helpful to the councils that are the major shareholders in Northport (at Marsden Point), Ports of Auckland and Port of Tauranga, when they assess the future capital needs of the ports in their areas.

The background document on the report said it should provide "independent, robust and credible analysis, modelling and data about current and future freight demand and supply, incorporating scenarios to meet that demand" and should address such factors as: Key international shipping trends and competitive shipping practices, including the potential future role of coastal shipping; The strategies and plans of major exporters and importers; The investment strategies of other ports, such as those in Australia and the Pacific Rim; The current freight land transport network and supply chain strategies.

The background paper said the report should also estimate the ability of the upper North island ports to meet future freight demand based on such factors as access to land, changes to ship size, rail corridor capacity and availability of transport links and inland freight hubs. "The results of this study and any subsequent decisions/actions or further work undertaken could have significant and long-term implications for the upper North Island's economy and its associated ports and transport infrastructure," it said. In Auckland, the council could use the information in the report as a basis for further work "to propose and assess future port development options for Auckland and the downtown port area".

The background paper said such further work might consider factors such as: Different configuration alternatives at the current port locations, or as-yet-unexplored alternative locations for current port infrastructure; High level capital and operating costs; Economic costs and benefits of various options; Alignment of, or gaps in current freight land transport strategies and plans. Lorimer said the report could play a critical role in planning the future of the region's transport system, provided it was " a robust study undertaken by somebody who knows what they are doing".