Subscribe to RSSCoastal Shipping Fear Future With Rail Growth
Coastal shipping officials and advocates are questing how coastal shipping will survive if more freight moves to rail and road.
The government’s “let market forces decide” approach is under fire. Maritime Union secretary, Joe Fleetwood, says an example of the much promoted “market forces” causing havoc are the moves by Fonterra to shift its products onto long distance rail rather than through local ports which had damaged the Port of Timaru in 2009.
Mr Fleetwood says it is incorrect for the government to say they want market forces decide the future of the maritime industry, when “massive taxpayer investment” was directed at roads and rail.
He says that a “hands off” approach to the maritime industry means major market players would dominate the market and make decisions that could harm New Zealand’s transport infrastructure.”
Mr Fleetwood says the union is advocating a KiwiPort concept which would see co-ordination of ports at a national level, a level of investment by Government, and a planned approach to this country’ss transport needs. “
The warning from Rod Grout that New Zealand cargo could end up being hubbed through Australian ports is a very real possibility, which would result in further loss of control of New Zealand exports and downgrading of our transport infrastructure.
Pacifica Shipping CEO for the last 25 years, Rod Grout, in parting comments at the weekend when he left the position, told the media that we need an overview of the infrastructure and- “If we carry on doing it willy nilly as we are the chances are Australia will have much say as anything else.”
Mr Fleetwood was stronger in his words today saying that the path proposed by the current government “is to do nothing and let destructive parochial competition play out between our ports and a few self-interested big players.” He says New Zealand has continued to be disadvantaged by its dependence on global shippers who controlled port trade.
“As a trading nation and a maritime island nation, it is irresponsible and short sighted to have no long term direction for our maritime transport industry set by the government.”
8 Comments
Perhaps he’s right and shipping will be hubbed in Australia? Somehow I don’t think so as Oz ports will require their excess capacity in the not too distant future. Perhaps it’s a wakeup call for all the small ports in New Zealand to hub. This is going to happen anyway and the sooner the better(it will be good for rail too!).
I think that central government is well overdue to review the port situation. In the old days I think there would have been a royal commission like there were for rail.
Why doesn’t he want market forces to take over?
Rail is supposed to be losing it’s subsidies, so really the shipping lobby will have no complaint.
Unfortunately at the moment the handful of massive overseas shipping lines are playing NZ ports against one another for the best deal. This means the ports aren’t making enough money to get a return on capital, and will struggle to justify the investment needed for deepening channels and improving terminals to handle larger ships. That is what letting market forces deciding leads to. Therefore the govt needs to take a lead, and bring everyone together to sort things out.
several people at my school has parents who lost jobs when fonterra stopped exporting out of Prime Port, i was outraged when i heard what fonterra did.
National has cut funding for coastable shipping and rail - in preference for constructing toll roads. So whilst coastal shipping may be losing out so to is rail.
Anthony - I’m sorry to hear about the people who have lost jobs. Primeport(Timaru) is I believe, one of the least viable ports in the country. There will be good reasons for Fonterra paying the extra money to rail their containers to Lyttelton
The Maritime Union of New Zealand has released a response. Part of this is
“Union is advocating a KiwiPort concept which would see co-ordination of ports at a national level, a level of investment by Government, and a planned approach to New Zealand’s transport needs.
He says an example of the much promoted “market forces” causing havoc are the moves by Fonterra to shift its products onto long distance rail rather than through local ports which had damaged the Port of Timaru in 2009.
“The path proposed by the current Government is to do nothing and let destructive parochial competition play out between our ports and a few self-interested big players.”
He says New Zealand has continued to be disadvantaged by its dependence on global shippers who controlled port trade.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1001/S00348.htm
Timaru port will be viable, just not for containers, and the quicker it stops handling them the better. Timaru’s future is in handling bulk products, like grain. It could help Lyttleton free up land by taking some more bulk stuff of them, such as logs so Lyttleton can concentrate on containers, West Coast coal.
Fonterra’s move is all about getting a better choice of ships to move their product. Lyttleton handles several ships a day, compared to Timaru’s handful a week.
In the case of Fonterra & PrimePort Timaru, should Fonterra be forced to use the local port when it does not get the shipping calls that they need? Of course not, although some seem to think so.
There are too many container ports for a country the size of NZ and rationalisation is needed. Ideally that should occur according to a plan rather than just market forces, or more money will be poured down the drain as the ports try to out do each other.