Great Port Debate Continues

On Monday 16^th April, the Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan Committee met to consider the Port of Auckland’s latest two options for the Port’s expanded future.

This blog posting reports the blow by blow debate in the Council Chamber, and gives a score card assessment of individual performance ( I was going to do this - but instead I wrote the thinkpiece that I posted just after this one....).

The public discussion so far has been reasonably well captured in NZ Herald.

In essence – though it is very hard to actually lay your hands on these plans – the two Port expansion options can be summarized:

Option 1:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 180 metres, and give back to the public Marsden Wharf

Option 2:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 135 metres and keep Marsden Wharf.

From what I can glean talking about it, the issue for the Port Company is how to deal with anticipated cargo expansion not containers (this includes car imports and such like), and they base their plans on a year by year increase in freight of 4%. That seems to be the heart of the increase in trade demand that POAL aims to meet – over the next 30 years – through these expansion plans. Which are a lot less than Council was looking at this time last year.

So. Back to yesterday’s debate about the Port (there were other items relating to the Unitary Plan, as you might expect, but I’m not dealing with them here):

Apologies: Councillors Lee and Coney were absent (That made me wonder. Deals are made of these sorts of absences…) Councillor Hulse would be late. Councillor Morrison was away on Council business but would be in later.

Chairman: Councillor George Wood was in the Chair in Cllr Hulse’s absence.

Heart of the City: Alex Swney, Greg McKeown and Terry Gould (HOC Chairman) were given 5 minutes, without power point. Mr Gould reminded Cllrs of the 2 pager briefing that had been pr-circulated (nods and shakes of heads) and delivered their forceful, pointed arguments. I report them here as I noted them:

-         “…the Port is in our patch

-         requires in depth consideration

-         your officers have said “you don’t need to see Stage 2 of the research”, and that looking out 30 years is enough – instead of 100

-         there is a discrepancy in the growth projections used by POAL from those in the Price Waterhouse report

-         you have asked for good information in which to base your decision, and you have not had it

-         I ran STEM (Stop the Eastern Motorway). I remind Cllrs that it was POAL that led the pro-highway campaign

-         We won that campaign and the Council fell

-         We insist that that Stage 2 report is received before decision. The Stage 2 report considers all the urban connections and implications like new roads and rail connections. It considers Maori implications.

-         Don’t put any of the POAL expansion plans into the Unitary Plan”

Cllr Casey Question: Isn’t there a conflict of interest issue? Council’s Chief Finance Officer Andrew McKenzie is on the board of NZCID – submitting here for the POAL plans. And there is another director who sits on the board of POAL and EMA – also here submitting for the POAL expansion plans? (Gould agreed.)

Cllr Fletcher Question: Should the Unitary Plan be fast-tracked in relation to its ability to increase employment opportunities? (Swney said did not need to be rushed. There were efficiency activities underway by POAL now that would increase employment without expansion.)

Cllr Filipaina Question: Could you explain what you mean by the Maori issue? (HOC said there were a number of issues in Stage 2 report, including a proper understanding of Maori relationship with Ports, reclaimed land, and the harbour, with implications, which had yet to be worked through.)

Chamber of Commerce - Michael Barnett (and Tony Garnier). Barnett started off with a sustained attack on Heart of the City, which he returned to:

-         “…This is not a conversation…

-         the real heart of Auckland is its Port..

-         the POAL plan is a realistic and practical proposal

-         remember the PWC report which called for “all three ports” – Auckland, Marsden and Tauranga being needed

-         there is no case for the Port to be moved and re-located, it would cost upwards of $4 billion

-         POAL and its customers need certainty, and that is being undermined

-     we are giving Tauranga ratepayers money that should be subsidising our rates…”

No Questions noted.  (Barnett’s thrust was an attack on Heart of the City. Tactic was pure and simple: shoot the messenger. Struck me at the time the debate was being shaped as an either/or: either expand the port or close it down. Unstated middle-ground is maximize its efficiency on presently consented footprint. No further reclamation proposals. And his point about Tauranga ratepayers was very cheap.)

Westhaven Marina Users – Barry Holton. Forthright defence of recreational boat users, but also concerned about knock-on effects to urban Auckland:

-         we have grave concerns about amenity value losses

-         oppose further narrowing of Harbour, and related loss of views

-         it will compromise Auckland’s “City of Sails” brand and image

-         there is a rush hour on the Harbour at key times, a washing machine effect of boats coming and going, that will be increased by narrowing

-         tidal flow rates will increase and new eddies will form

-         distinct lack of stakeholder consultation by POAL which amounts to criminal negligence

Employers and Manufacturers – Kim Campbell.  This seemed like the soft cop to the Chamber’s hard cop:

-         these plans are just a signal, an opportunity

-         this is a business and it needs confidence, and its customers need reassurance that it’s a going concern

-         to talk of moving it is fantasy

-         do we want to grow, or take the shutters down?

No Questions noted. ( This came over as far too glib. And again the repeated message: “Auckland will only grow if Ports of Auckland grows…” No mention of the middle option. The middle line in the sand.)

POAL CEO – Tony Gibson.  This was a detailed and reasonably factual presentation, which was interspersed with a series of attacks on Heart of the City:

-         he began by attacking details in HOC media releases, saying, “these just support Ports of Tauranga”

-         it would cost $4billion to build a new port – and that’s what HOC wants

-         we are discussing reclamation proposals, it has been a good, unrushed process

-         he praised Councillors for their engagement

-         he used the PWC report’s call for flexibility as a justification for more reclamation

-         he pushed back against Council suggestions that reclamation within the basin should be “non-complying” and didn’t want other reclamations to be any more difficult than other reclamations – in consenting terms

-         our public presentation has not attracted the same public criticism as last time

Cllr Casey Question. Angry about employment and industrial relations.

Cllr Wayne Walker Question.  Should we not have stage 2 report before we decide? We’re being caught on the hop here. What about berthing Queen Mary 2 if we shorten Marsden Wharf for example?  (Gibson answer: Marsden is mostly built on rock 2 metres below the surface. Won’t be able to blast this.)  (Gibson answer: The stage 2 issues that councillors are concerned about can be dealt with in a future resource consent application.)

Maori Statutory Board Question: Talked about past issues and history. We have a sticking point, that Maori issues have been relegated to stage 2. We want the Maori issues lifted to a higher level.

Cllr Wood Question.  Sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2 and what the officer’s recommendation was. (Appeared to be confusion here.)

Cllr Webster Question.  Also sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2. (Confusion deepened.)

Devonport – Takapuna Local Board Chair – Chris Darby. A forthright criticism:

-         “….we were a little seduced by the carrot of Captain Cook Wharf, but not for the price of what POAL is asking

-         this is not the time to be putting extension opportunities into the Unitary Plan

-         there is a risk that any RMA consent application will be called in by the Minister, and the decision will be made in Wellington

-         this would reduce opportunities for public input about road and rail consequences

-         POAL has not done the work needed to dismiss relocation. There’s nothing about this in these documents. There’s no cost benefit assessment.

-         More reclamation is just more sprawl. We like it in Auckland. It’s a habit we must break.

-         We are more of a Harbour Edge City, than a Reclaim the Harbour City

-         We need to take a global view here, and call for the Stage 2 report. Don’t put these expansion plans into the Unitary Plan….”

Cllr Walker Question/Statement.  The tests that are now being applied in the RAM for consents are more about reasonableness than anything else. Whittled down.

Cllr Brewer Question: Challenged Darby on what Local Board’s position was. Debate.

Auckland Council Officer – Harvey Brookes.  (This officer is known for his robust backing of economic growth and port expansion. A cheer-leader for POAL. He has difficulty now in taking a position of credible independence) He began with complex maps with various non-complying areas, grey areas, corners, extensions and complexity. (Muddied the waters.) Things he said:

-         this is not a resource consent hearing

-         if we do nothing (in terms of Unitary Plan) there could be an application for reclamation from POAL – which would be dealt with by what is in the plan now – which is very much more permissive than what is proposed.

-         He acknowledged Maori concerns

-         Auckland will have four bites at this cherry: Auckland Unleashed; Now with this Draft Plan; then when the Unitary Plan is finally notified; and then when a consent application is made – does not need any more

-         The PWC report justifies what is proposed here

Mayor Len Brown. Moved to head off looming stoush. I understand a lot of work had been going on behind the scenes between his Executive Office Staff, key stakeholders, and officers. He moved an alternative set of resolutions. Speaking to them he summarized what their purpose was:

-         these give us more time to consider the issues

-         from the get go – the Port stays

-         Captain Cook and Marsden wharves need to come back into public

-         There is not enough information re transport connections and inland port, but we could notify these plans without that

-         We have until September to decide in principle on POAL position.

-         Will revisit this June/August period

-         We’ve seen the changes today, have luxury of time, utilize that

Deputy Mayor Hulse seconded.

Cllr Casey:  Major concerns about conflicts of interest.

Cllr Wayne Walker:  Worried about very limited number of options on table.

Cllr Hulse:  We do need to draw a line in the sand about this. The Unitary Plan can’t be silent on POAL expansion.

Maori Statutory Board:  Worried about maori investigation being missed out. Moved an amendment. This was incorporated with Mayor Len Brown’s agreement. (This effectively severed from Stage 2 investigation the Maori issues, and gave them high priority in Council eye’s than the urban transport implications of POAL expansion plans.)

Cllr Fletcher:  These recommendations are wishy washy. Port should stay. Recommendations should state that. Mayor Len Brown said, “I’m happy to say that – that Port should remain in its present location.”  This was then incorporated into the resolutions.

Cllr Raffills:  I like what we’re saying. But think it should mention all three ports. This is a strategic matter. Not just about POAL alone.

Cllr Webster:  I support this.

Cllr Wood:  Support, but I’m still unsure about the 179 metre and 135 metre options.

Cllr Filipaina:  Support and like common sense and more time.

Cllr Brewer:  I agree with Cllr Fletcher about location. Am interested in POAL public consultation now. How will it be concluded? Is it well resourced? (People behind me muttered about how independent it was, and how was doing it….)  Harvey Brookes explained that it was being done to “certain standards” which were not explained.  (I have to say that I think the whole thing is being done well below the public radar, despite reasonable coverage by NZ Herald. It is clearly not in POAL’s interest to get the public interested in this at all….)

Cllr Hartley:  It’s good that it’s in the Unitary Plan (it’s not yet).

Cllr Anae:  Asked various questions of Tony Gibson which he replied to about efficiency. Productivity will move from 32 movements an hour to 42 (unsure what this means), will be able to handle 3.1 million containers with what we have now (I think this is what he said), will be a paradigm shift in port technologies, ships are getting beamier, can cope with what we have now….)

And with that a vote was taken. 

Total agreement. A decision to buy some time. 

A decision, I hope, in which the public will be enabled to engage.