Missing the Point - Moving the Port

For a good while now, NZ Herald has been publishing opinions about Auckland's port, and when, where, if, and how it might be moved. Its opinion writer of the year, Simon Wilson, can't let the story go. But much of the coverage doesn't properly explain this very big public policy issue. I'll try and explain my reasoning below, using Simon's article from today's NZ Herald.

But first a little bit of policy analysis 101. Considine's Policy Diamond is a good start....

This policy diamond diagram is general, not specific to POAL, but illustrates four main components needed for a public policy investigation which recognises that making or changing public policy is fundamentally a political process, and not a rational process, despite the hopes and aspirations of some of those who may be affected.

Simon's article today is entitled:  What happened to the plan to shift the Auckland port? (unless you have access to NZ Herald Premium you won't be able to see it).

This is where the problem of his explanation begins.

There is no plan to shift the Auckland port.

There are ideas about shifting it. There are visions about what could happen if it was moved. There are aspirations and hopes about that. But there is no plan. And there can't be a plan until there's a policy to have a plan from those with the power, and any "shift the port" policy investigation worth its salt needs to acknowledge the boxes in the diagram, and address them.

Otherwise all we're talking about in these NZ Herald opinion articles is ideas (not plans), which typically embody only the values of a selection of those affected (eg un-named citizens of Auckland), contain carefully chosen financial and resource information that supports the ideas, and generally fails to fairly describe the drivers and policies of the main institutions of influence. There's a place for writing about ideas and aspirations of course - but there's a world of difference between that and good investigative journalism about a complex public policy matter such as moving Auckland's port.   

Here is the Herald article, with my comments:

What happened to the idea of moving the port? Isn't this a good time, with no one around, for Northland to sneak in, load up all those cranes and straddle carriers and just steal them away to Northport? That's not quite as silly as it sounds, and it wouldn't need to be Northport doing it. Ports of Auckland (POA) could take charge.

It is misleading to imply that moving the port is this simple. Like scoring a cheap point in a debate. Readers can laugh. But are they any the wiser? I don't think so. And if POA "could take charge" shouldn't they be part of this opinion? Or is this just setting up another "right of reply" and so it goes round and round.

Susan Krumdieck was a member of the Upper North Island Supply Chain (UNISC) strategy group that recommended moving the Auckland port earlier this year. She told me this week that she had asked POA: "If the 1.4km of berth at Northport were built and ready, and your owners said, 'Pick up operations and move to Northport,' what would happen?"They said: 'If the Northport build had been done with the equipment and operations designed in, then it would take about a month to break down the POA, put the kit on ships and build it back at Northport. Call it three months all up to shift the POA to the new berth at Northport'."Krumdieck added: "With the land available and the ability to lay it all out from scratch, the efficiency of the operations could be improved to world class. The POA would make more money for their shareholders. POA business would 'move' to Northport, not be lost to the ratepayers."

Informed readers will be aware that it doesn't matter what point is being made, it is always possible to find an expert who will - for whatever reason, and with the best will in the world - apply their expertise and argue in support of that point, and an expert who will convincingly argue against it. This kind of quoted expertise might fill up the column, and it might cheer those who need cheering in COVID times, but it lacks balance and over-simplifies.

The POA shareholders, remember, are us - the ratepayers of Auckland. Moving the port north doesn't have to mean we would lose anything. And Northport, which is near Whangarei, is already part-owned by POA.

This is the heart of the opinion piece, and is where it fails as a piece of public policy analysis. Sure ratepayers are shareholders. But that group is only one of the groups who are affected. The customers of the port will also be affected. Auckland has changed since it was established in Waitemata Harbour, but having a port at its center was key to its development, and this remains a critical part of its economy. The logistics arrangements of POAL customers include port handling charges of course (and cranes and straddle carriers), but they also include roading and transport time costs. Many of those customers would lose if the port was moved. But those losses are ignored and dismissed in this opinion piece. They need to be addressed in any move the port investigation. I'm aware that issue has formed part of other reports, but it's ignored in this piece. And I haven't even got started.

So what did happen to the idea of moving the port? As we move out of lockdown, the Government says, there will be a massive spend on infrastructure to get New Zealand working again. The Auckland Council has submitted a list of 73 projects.Not a one of them bears any relationship at all to the proposal to move the port. Yet the council and the Government have said the car and container operations do not have a long-term future on the downtown Auckland waterfront. A working group representing all affected groups came to the same conclusion in 2016.   

The idea of moving the port is still pretty much that - an idea. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Auckland Council does not have any "shovel ready" projects to move the port, as it has yet to adopt any policy in that direction. Last time I looked at the port it was business as usual - a multi-story carpark is close to completion for its car import business, and the new automated straddle carrier systems and container handling facilities on Ferguson Terminal are close to being fully operational after more than a year's installation and testing. All funded by public money. Until Auckland Council, in collaboration with POAL and Central Government, has adopted a "move the port" policy, nothing will change, despite all the reports in the world. To be fair to Simon, the next part of his opinion piece does make that statement....

As yet, there is no political commitment to the UNISC recommendations, which include expanding Northport and the Tauranga port. The crisis has probably pushed a decision out to an uncertain future date.But it is agreed the port will need to move within 20 years or so. Even Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, one of the most vocal critics of UNISC, says yes to that.The thing about 20 years, with a project of this scale, is that it has to start now. Moreover, given all the money the Government is about to spend on economic salvage, if the port isn't included now, it may never be.There'll be no money left for anything else. Covid-19 could become a Trojan horse for killing off the idea. So what should they do?

In this part of his article, Simon moves from writing about "moving the port" as an idea, to it being a project, something that has gone beyond being just a plan, and is actually happening, and can be started right now. But it clearly isn't. As the millions being spent now on developing the port infrastructure in Auckland clearly shows. Despite this reality, Simon spends a good chunk of his article show-casing the project ideas of his expert advocate Krumdieck...

The heart of the UNISC proposal is not the move to Northport. It's that freight haulage should shift largely to rail. That requires a modern railway network and a new "inland port" or freight hub in Auckland's northwest, probably near Kumeu.The proposal is for a rail line "around the back door", as Krumdieck puts it. One that doesn't route freight on to State Highway 1 through the city, as the port does now, or across the harbour bridge, but skirts round to the west.It's the key to managing congestion on Auckland's roads. And the condition of the country's highways. And it's a vital component in our response to the climate crisis. In time, UNISC proposed, 80 per cent of the country's freight could be shifted by rail. Modernising the Northland-Auckland railway and building the inland depot, says Krumdieck, "should be top of the list" in the new infrastructure spend. Krumdieck, by the way, is a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Canterbury and a world-renowned expert in freight logistics. She did the freight modelling for UNISC, using an advanced programme common in Europe and Asia but not yet licensed to anyone else here.The new freight hub will become an "intermodal distribution centre" that "draws the heavy industry and warehousing out along that line and provide the lifeline for rational industrial growth". Getting goods into the city will be the "last leg", done by road freight, largely at night. The rail link will continue through Avondale to the industrial south and further, into Waikato and beyond.The freight hub would remain an Auckland operation. The city won't be losing out but will be able to function better and get many other benefits.

These are all good ideas. The idea of rail - especially freight rail - from Auckland to Northland has been around for decades. It is an aspirational idea that doesn't become part of a plan and then a planned and budgeted project just because an expert backs it. Until there is a policy to move the Auckland port - or parts of it - that is agreed by the relevant institutions and policy organisations, ideas like this will remain pie in the sky. Which clearly frustrates Simon...

As with the idea that a Northport operation could still be a POA business, this is something Goff has never seemed able to grasp.

Praising individuals who support your values, and mocking those who don't might raise a laugh and trigger supporting letters to the Herald newspaper, but it doesn't improve the quality of the journalism, nor the investigation. Institutional politics and the political economy of all of those who are affected are at the heart of this public policy issue. Getting to grips with what is happening inside those institutions, and bringing into the open the concerns and fears of those who are affected is essential to an understanding of this public policy issue. Simon finishes his piece like this... 

Re-establishing the Northland line, says Krumdieck, has a business case larger than two - for every dollar spent, the benefit will be more than $2.Also: "The cars on the Auckland waterfront could move to Northport and Tauranga today. The servicing jobs would move with them and the workers would be able to afford to live there."It all depends on the railway. Build a rail line able to carry the cars on electric trains and, right there, you've got an excellent model of what the future of freight in this country could look like.On the other hand, if we don't do it, keeping the port and its related operations where they are will cost at least $8 billion, with no new benefits to show for it. The business case for that, Krumdieck notes, is less than one.And what's the real cost going to be? Krumdieck puts it, "realistically", at $14 billion."That $14b will return more than twice because it enables a totally different future. The rebuild of New Zealand rail – preferably electric – is the main thing separating New Zealand's future as a prosperous nation from a future as a third world backwater. You either build the country that works well, or you are Ghana."Meanwhile, Ports of Auckland has just announced the arrival of 12,000 boxes of bananas and 12,000 cartons of pineapples. And more coffee beans.It's way beyond reason to use our downtown waterfront and clog up our roads for that.

It all sounds so simple. Build an electric freight rail line. Problem solved. But it isn't that simple. And dismissing New Zealand, and POAL, as being "Ghana" doesn't help.