Auckland port move: Who holds trump card in port political poker?

Friday, 4 October 2019

The future roles of ports at Auckland, Tauranga and Marsden Point are being reviewed

OPINION: The latest hand of political poker played over the future of Auckland's port leaves us no closer to finding out who holds the trump card.

The New Zealand First-driven desire to make Marsden Point's Northport as the replacement for Auckland's port has been supported by an economic analysis, which in turn led a working party to pick precisely that option as the most viable for the upper North Island's three ports.

But the case is far from complete, and two key players have yet to show their hands - Auckland Council and the Government.

Despite the view from associate transport minister and New Zealand First MP Shane Jones that the latest report is a government one, not an NZF one, the government's appetite for a move of unprecedented scale is yet to be tested.

* Auckland port move: Study favours $10b plan to shift hub to Northport

* Northland cheers proposal to shift Auckland port to Northport: 'We're ready'

An aerial view at night of Ports of Auckland's container terminal.

* Northland rail: Link to Marsden Point 'next step'**

An independent working group led by Far North political and commercial identity Wayne Brown said Northport was its 'preferred option'.

In short, Auckland's port would progressively close, Northport expand, with billions spent on new rail lines and widened highways linking the two.

A vehicle import processing centre would be built at Northport and a freight 'hub' in Auckland's northwest.

Port of Tauranga would continue on it's own commercial journey, but without specific infrastructure spending to support it.

There is no doubt the idea would be a phenomenal economic boost to Northland.

But on the flipside, little new work has been done on the downside to Auckland.

Such as the 2017 report by NZIER, commissioned by Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, which found the loss of the vehicle trade alone would affect up to 10,000 Auckland jobs, with the costs out-weighing the benefits to the tune of $1 billion.

Goff filed that one away as it didn't fit his newly-elected enthusiasm for reclaiming port land as public waterfront.

The same mayor, on the eve of possible re-election, has found plenty of holes in the latest case to shift the port - even though he still likes the notion.

No mention of how Auckland would be compensated for the loss of its port company which he valued conservatively at $600 million.

Goff asked where the environmental and economic analysis was of having to shuttle so many imports down to Auckland.

It was a point made in the 2016 Port Future Study by consultants Ernst and Young (EY).

'Relocating multi-cargo to Northport would have a considerable impact on the supply chain for these goods, and associated negative costs for suppliers and freight operators, as most of the goods would have to be transported back to the Auckland region and further south,' said EY.

'The related transport infrastructure pressures and loss of economic activity to the Auckland region would be significant.'

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announces $94.8m for rail maintenance on the North Auckland Line.

In the latest analysis for the working group, again by EY, the consultants found the answer to their 2016 conundrum.

'It is assumed that 70 per cent of the freight task is covered by rail. This substantially drops the economic impact of the significant lengthening of the logistics and supply chain.'

The $10.3 billion cost of the port redevelopment and transport infrastructure is not all additional money as it includes roading and rail upgrades that may otherwise happen much further in the future.

However, it is an eye-catching number for a government already grappling with how to fund and build the promised Light Rail Network for Auckland.

EY estimates the financial returns to Auckland from a re-developed waterfront could leave it better off to the tune of $48 million a year.

Goff disputes that, and the report doesn't make clear how many decades and how many dollars would be needed to prepare the former port reclaimed land for commercial or public use, and when the revenue would flow.

A future Auckland waterfront devoted to public space, recreation and quality development is irresistible.

The path to it remains as unclear as ever.

With key Auckland players complaining they have been kept out of the loop since last Christmas, the prospect of the case for the move being more robust when the group's final report is presented to cabinet in the next month or so seems remote.

Goff said Auckland was ready to co-operate on the outstanding issues.

The coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour in 2017 gave the green light for the feasibility work, but no more.

Whether the government will agree to press on into a new phase of study or exploration, will be key.