Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) operates a substantial general
cargo port and container terminal on the edge of Auckland’s CBD. It occupies a critical site adjacent to commercial, recreational, and residential zones. Its future development will have a major
impact on the city centre by way of land use options, traffic flows, harbour and harbour-side-based recreation and
tourism, and the quality of central city life.
Rob Campbell’s concerns
It was disturbing, then, to read recently resigned Board
member Rob Campbell’s view of the port’s future on Bob Dey’s Property Report website,
especially in light of controversies about port operations and plans.
As I read it, Campbell is saying that corporate plans for
the port are really about more of the same – a harbour edge transport operation
which does little to recognise the value of the site or consider how the company
might increase efficiencies and returns by greater specialisation. He calls for radical change: incremental gains in productivity are not
enough.
He argues that POAL is not pursuing the gains that might
come from exploring the use of surplus or lower cost capacity elsewhere. This would take a quantum shift in thinking,
though, including a willingness to cooperate with other northern ports
(Tauranga and Northland).
The sector is due for a major shakeup in New Zealand if for
no other reason than the uncertainty that substantial long
term increase in fuel prices create around future trade and shipping arrangements. Our ports have to
be able to respond. Not only that;
our economy and the economies of our trading partners are undergoing transformations which are bound to impact on trade flows in ways that are
difficult to predict.
The Productivity
Commission’s focus: governance issues
Against this background of uncertainty the Productivity
Commission in its International
Freight Services Inquiry highlighted the difficulties in port management
and development arising from current governance arrangements. Local
council control confuses purpose and direction, and prejudices governance in a commercial
environment through the presence and expectations of elected representatives.
This effect has been seen in Auckland where a prolonged
industrial dispute has seen councillors taking partisan
stands and where one of the most contentious issues in the Auckland Council’s
Draft Spatial Plan was the proposed inclusion of a planned a 250m
extension of reclamation by the port, since removed.
Revolutionary change –
saving sectors
I have been involved in two sectors that underwent
revolutionary changes to stay above water. Both involved new players moving the ground
from under conservative (and dominant) incumbents.
The New Zealand slaughtering and meat processing industry had
to experience plant closures and company collapses to move from being a highly
seasonal, over-capitalised, and non-viable industry to one that could compete
internationally. Long-standing work
practises, fixed management thinking, and remote ownership prejudiced its ability to respond to the trade upheavals that followed Britain’s
move into the EEC in the 1970s. It took
new entrants with new ways of doing things to save it from crippling rigidities built on past
success and current complacency.
In aviation, the
beliefs of major western airlines that they were as streamlined and integrated
as they could be and of airlines in emerging nations that they could compete
using the same management model but paying lower wages were turned over by a new breed of low cost carriers. Southwest pioneered the model in the US in the
1970s but it was not until the last 15 years that the LCC has really taken off. RyanAir
and easyJet led the way in Europe in the 1990s. Air Asia has changed thinking
about how airlines should operate in the developing world since then.
These and their emulators re-invented the operational,
management, and capital structures of aviation, forcing change on those traditional
carriers that survived. They have
changed the way the public travels and have managed to restore a semblance of profitability
to a sector in which that has been all too rare.
The Ports of Auckland
Plan: back to the future?
The port industry in New Zealand may need a similar
revolution. I looked for signs of revolutionary thinking in the POAL
2009 Development
Plan. All I could see is a commitment to more of the same.
The analysis of future demand is central to any understanding
of what the port expects to be doing, and how it might be doing it in the
future. But there is no such analysis. Instead, there is an extrapolation of TEU (20 foot container equivalent
units) throughput and a conversion of this projection into capacity requirement. A compounding 8% growth rate in TEUs handled from
1989 to 2007 was adjusted down to 5% as “a slightly more conservative long term
growth rate” and used to project demand from 2008 to 2040.
This is anything but
conservative
When I looked at tonnage growth using the Statistics NZ
Infoshare cargo figures from 1989 to 2010 I actually got a 4% growth rate, which
raises a question over which figures to use.
However, anomalies in the historical figures fade into the background
when we consider the impact of 5% compounding growth over thirty years: a four to
five fold gain in container throughput.
This raw projection begs a lot of questions about New Zealand’s
changing trade profile. That’s not the
immediate subject of this blog. Suffice
to say, few commentators or policy makers are likely to see a fulfilling future
as one built on exponential growth in trade volumes.
Ports of Auckland Vision for its Future
So why such a conservative response?
POAL does acknowledge uncertainty around the projections which inform its assessment of expansion options. But none of the options canvassed (see pages 11 -13 in the Plan) envisage relocation of component trades or operations, although inland ports will no doubt play a significant role in the streamlining envisaged. Instead a combination of progressive reclamation and new stacking operations is proposed. The need to deal with larger vessels is also acknowledged in new berth design parameters and a channel deepening programme.
No doubt efficiencies can be imposed at the
margins through investment in new equipment and changing working conditions. But what will this achieve in the
long-term? And how relevant will it be
to New Zealand’s – and Auckland’s – economy in 2030 or 2040?
POAL is proposing to cement in a development plan which imposes a singular and historical view of its
place in New Zealand trade, and in the central Auckland cityscape. If we are to go with Rob Campbell’s analysis,
productivity will be diminished because a relatively low cost activity will be
expanded over high cost (reclaimed) land.
Its hard to understand how such a conservative approach to development can be founded on such a bullish vision of the future. Unless we actually suspend our belief in the projection, which seems like a sensible idea.
Time for a rethink
I’m not sure that this path is one that the country or the
city can afford, at least not on such an apparently thin analysis of future
demand.
So it’s a wise move by the Council to omit the planned
reclamation from Auckland’s Spatial Plan.
This is something that we need to think long and hard about. We need to expand our thinking about the physical
options facing trade in the northern North Island, for a start, rethink the
role of the port in downtown Auckland, and perhaps heed the Productivity
Commission’s advice regarding ownership and governance of the port industry.