Jones threatens Auckland Port CEO

Shane Jones threatened Ports of Auckland CEO Tony Gibson in a heated meeting in the Beehive last week as the port launched its own campaign dismissing the New Zealand First-instigated proposal to move it to Whangarei. Dileepa Fonseka has the exclusive.

Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones warned Auckland’s port boss Tony Gibson at a closed-door meeting last week to stay away from the ports debate.

But Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) is pressing ahead, commissioning two studies questioning the work of a working group looking into moving Auckland’s port 165km north to Northport, the results of which were released on Thursday morning.

“My advice to you as a chief executive is do not put your head in a political noose.”

A report from the working group that considered the move is currently making its way through Cabinet. 

At a meeting in Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s office last week with POAL CEO, Jones said: “My advice to you as a chief executive is do not put your head in a political noose.”

Economists and consultants are questioning the data behind moving Auckland Port north. Photo: Lynn Grieveson

Jones confirmed his comments in an interview with Newsroom. He said his words were meant as a warning to the CEO not to enter the “political fray” of the ports debate.

Others at the meeting told Newsroom Jones boasted that both he and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters were top political operators and ports CEO Tony Gibson would be making a mistake if he decided to take them on.

“Now I will deal with him, in the time before the election, in a very political way, I love that, that’s the sport I’m paid to engage in.”

Jones said his warnings that the decision to move the port was “as much about politics as it is about economics”. Newsroom spoke to Jones after hearing of the heated meeting from sources within the Government.

“Don’t fudge any words, the leaks that you’ve been given are a reflection of the warning that I gave.”

Jones said now that discussions around the meeting had leaked he considered Gibson a “political combatant”. 

“Now I will deal with him, in the time before the election, in a very political way. I love that, that’s the sport I’m paid to engage in.”

The exchange took place after Robertson left the room, leaving Jones, Minister of Transport Phil Twyford, and Gibson – along with a number of other staff – in the meeting.

Robertson said it was “an interesting meeting” with an “exchange of views” over the port study. 

“Funnily enough, I actually had to go and deliver a speech in the house and so I was there for the beginning of it, but I wasn’t there for the end of it,” Robertson told Newsroom.

Twyford characterised the meeting as “good-natured”.

A debate split along coalition lines

Jones acknowledged questions around POAL’s future divided along coalition lines and the only mandate from the coalition agreement around the port issue was for a port study. 

“There is an inevitability that the port moves…but at the same time it’s not lost on me that this report and the scaremongering around the report has led to vein-popping responses from Phil Goff.”

Grant Robertson says colleagues will have questions around other options for the port move. Photo: Lynn Grieveson

Finance Minister Robertson acknowledged the Government had a number of questions after receiving the report. 

“I do think among some of the questions we’ve got are around assessing this idea of Northport against other options.”

Robertson said “clearly” there would be a debate around other locations the port could be moved to.

He noted the report had “looked” at some of those options.

“I know that there are some people who argue more could be done there.”

Twyford said Cabinet would consider whether additional work would need to be done on investigating the other options for the port move.

“I think consideration of other options is one of those things they’ll be looking at,” he told Newsroom.

Questions from economists

Economists and consultants are questioning the data behind a port move north, but the chair of the working group behind those studies said the need for the move is “obvious”. 

International consulting firm Castalia and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research have been commissioned by POAL to look into issues around a second port report released in October. 

NZIER said the benefits – even the ability to convert Auckland waterfront land into prime residential land – were all speculative. 

And Castalia highlighted problems with the assumption that all of POAL’s business would move to Northland rather than Tauranga. 

’12th best option jumped to first’

Economist Lawrence Kubiak of NZIER said the study hadn’t followed Treasury business case standards, which required analysis through “a number of different lenses…to determine whether the proposal is beneficial to NZ Inc”. 

Kubiak said the value of the waterfront land freed up by a port move would differ markedly, depending on whether it was used for a stadium, housing or commercial. 

“Twelfth best option has jumped to first best option with no explanation at all of the reason for the change.” 

With regulations around height restrictions by the waterfront, he said it wasn’t a given the land would deliver as high a rates take as forecast by the second ports report. 

He has questioned whether companies would choose a port where 70 percent of cargo could only be moved by rail. 

A third port report by the Upper North Island Supply Chain working group is making its way through Cabinet. 

“We don’t have 30 years to stuff around.”

‘We could force Auckland to move’

Chairman of the group, Wayne Brown, said the changes between the second and third reports were more on the “how” behind a Northport move. 

That would involve a 12-month period of negotiation between Auckland Council and the Government with legislation to force the Government’s hand if the council didn’t settle. 

“We don’t have 30 years to stuff around,” Brown told Newsroom.

One of the major concerns Kubiak had was that the same company behind the economic analysis in the second report – Ernst & Young – had concluded Northport was the 12th best option in a report they finished just two years earlier.

“Twelfth best option has jumped to first best option with no explanation at all of the reason for the change.” 

$1b of compensation would be needed

An NZIER presentation on their findings said the second interim report was “thin on detail”. 

“It’s not easy to understand why it feels able to draw such strong conclusions from such limited analysis.”

Castalia’s analysis said Auckland Council would need $1 billion in compensation from the government to not come off worse off after such a move.

Northland port study mocked as inadequate

An economic analysis backing the move of the Port of Auckland to Northland has been panned as inadequate, poorly drafted, and full of padding.

AUCKLAND - JULY 12 2018:Freight ship in Ports of Auckland. its New Zealands largest commercial port handling more than NZ$20 billion of goods per year

Ports of Auckland. Photo: 123RF

The final report of a working party looking into the proposal was delivered to the government last week, giving its backing to a $10 billion move to Whangārei’s Northport, with the economic justification for the move contained in a report by advisory firm EY.

But Auckland’s port company has had the EY report put under the microscope by two economic consultancies – the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) and international firm Castalia.

Both studies said the EY report was short on numbers, made simplistic assumptions, and underestimated the costs of the plan while overestimating the benefits.

“The first and the most obvious point to make is that the report entitled ‘Economic Analysis of Upper North Island Supply Chain’ is nothing of the kind as it provides absolutely no information on how the supposed benefits are estimated,” the Castalia report said.

“The report is poorly drafted and contains almost no supporting evidence.”

WHANGAREI,NZ - Ship, wood logs and cranes in Northport

Northport in Whangarei. Photo: 123RF

Castalia said the EY study appeared to underestimate the cost of shifting the Port of Auckland to Northland by up to $3bn, while it overstated the benefits to Auckland City from freeing up waterfront land, and seemed to ignore that a shift north would likely see importers and exporters in the region put their business through the Port of Tauranga.

The NZIER analysis said the EY study was full of padding and speculation.

“The report has failed to address the feasibility question with sufficient transparency to provide a credible basis for advice to ministers.”

It also noted that EY had been involved in a 2017 report on the future of the port, which concluded the Firth of Thames or Manukau Harbour were best options for relocation and ranked the Northport option lowly.

Head of the Upper North Island Supply Chain working group, Wayne Brown, said the counter-review by the Ports of Auckland was “rubbish” and about “job preservation”.

The report given to the government relied on much more than the one EY report, with the group consulting 80 organisations, he said.

And he disputed the suggestion that carbon emissions would be greatly increased, saying Northport was closer for ships to get to and would use more rail and less roading than Auckland.

Ports of Auckland management declined to be interviewed but it a statement said the reviews spoke for themselves.

“They [the reviews] show that there are major problems with the EY study and that the idea of moving Auckland’s port to Northland is seriously flawed,” a port spokesman said.

Auckland port move: Review claims ‘omissions and flawed logic’ in plan to relocate to Northland

The case for moving Auckland’s port business to Northland does not fit the criteria of the working group proposing it, says a new analysis.

A review by Auckland Council said it is not satisfied the move option, recommended by the New Zealand First-driven group, justifies the estimated $10 billion of investment needed.

The council review described an economic case advanced by Ernst and Young as “inscrutable”, because it lacked detail on how it found the re-location made sense.

Ports of Auckland continues to invest in its site, with a hydrogen fuel plant and automated straddles
SUPPLIEDPorts of Auckland continues to invest in its site, with a hydrogen fuel plant and automated straddles

The work by the council, which owns Ports of Auckland and the 77 hectares of waterfront land it operates from, is the most detailed criticism yet of the controversial proposal to wind down the port and transfer its business to Marsden Point, perhaps within a decade. 

“The preferred option appears to be an extremely expensive way to relocate jobs to Northland from Auckland,” said the council analysis.

An aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the east
NONEAn aerial view of Ports of Auckland from the east

The council analysis is of the interim report by the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy working group, released in October along with an economic analysis from EY, of the future options for the ports at Marsden Point, Auckland and Tauranga.

The group, backed by EY’s findings, recommended re-locating Auckland’s port to Northland, reflecting New Zealand First’s 2017 election policy, before getting agreement from Labour in the coalition agreement to conduct the UNISCS study

The final report has just gone to the Government and will be considered by cabinet in December.

New Zealand First MP Shane Jones is driving the case to relocate Auckland's port to Northland
TOM LEE/STUFFNew Zealand First MP Shane Jones is driving the case to relocate Auckland’s port to Northland

Analysis of the interim report by Auckland Council’s chief economist unit and its strategy and research department said the re-location option did not meet the principles which the working group established for itself.

It said instead of “cost efficiency”, costs would rise, “maintaining the level of competition” would not be achieved, and removing a key supply point for Auckland would not “maintain or improve the resilience of the supply chain”.

The review disputed the working group’s conclusion that clearing prime waterfront land would be an economic windfall through higher rates for Auckland Council.

“There is no evidence for this – any new activity on the waterfront will likely displace activity elsewhere in the city,” it said.

The council also said the economic case did not seem to take into account the significant spending before any benefits might flow.

“Investment in Northland required to handle Auckland’s freight volumes would need to be complete and operational before any managed closure (in Auckland).

“This means the net benefit is probably much lower than estimated in the report,” said the council review.

The council said the assessed impacts on employment were inconsistent, suggesting few jobs would be lost in Auckland, but 2000 created in Northland.

“A $10 billion project to relocate 2000 jobs is a very expensive way to relocate jobs (roughly $5 million per job),” said Auckland Council.

It also questioned whether the rail infrastructure that would be needed to run more than 100 freight trains a day through Auckland, as well as the truck traffic generated by a freight hub near Kumeu, had been fully assessed.

Another analysis of the EY economic impact report, seen by Stuff, but with the name of the author not disclosed, believed EY and the group might have over-estimated the net economic benefit of the move by nearly four times.

New Zealand First MP, and Associate Transport Minister Shane Jones who is championing the case to relocate to Northport, said he was aware of the differing views.

“There was always doubt about EY’s work (on the move) – but I just consider that to be part of the consultancy gossip chain,” Jones told Stuff. 

The UNISC working party was chaired by Jones’ friend and Northland neighbour, businessman Wayne Brown, who took part in a television interview on TVNZ’s Q&A on Monday night in which several lines said to be from the final report, still unseen by cabinet, were put to him.

Stuff asked Jones whether the interview was appropriate.

“I don’t think it’s disproportionately unorthodox,” said Jones, who had been informed the interview would take place, but said he had not discussed with Brown what should or should not be said.

“Wayne Brown is someone my leader (Winston Peters) and I regard as an incredibly successful businessman, interested in Northland – but he is his own man,” Jones said.

The Government had made no promises on whether the idea proposed by New Zealand First in 2017 will progress.

“We undertook that we would complete the study, and we will,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told Stuff in October.

“I am not going to make commitments beyond receiving the final report because we need to see what evidence has ben compiled, and what the report tells us,” Ardern said.

The conduct of the working group’s study has created tension between it and Auckland Council, with sparring between Brown and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff who favoured the gradual redevelopment of the waterfront, but insisted there would need to be a price negotiated. 

Ernst and Young was approached for comment, but declined.

Stuff

Did KiwiBuild not teach this lot anything?

Duncan Garner 05:00, Nov 16 2019

OPINION: So now Winston Peters and his Government want to move the Ports of Auckland to Whangārei.

Such a small little thing to do that will barely cause much disruption at all. Said no-one ever.

Does anyone have any idea how ginormous this pie-in-the-sky promise really is?

Containers being loaded on to rail wagons at Ports of Auckland. Rail freight is a major part of the proposed expansion of Northport, in Whangārei.
Containers being loaded on to rail wagons at Ports of Auckland. Rail freight is a major part of the proposed expansion of Northport, in Whangārei.

Why? When? Where does the cargo go in the meantime? Has it been done before anywhere in a sane Western nation?

I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn’t appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come.

They being an expert panel who probably have no real idea, but call it a panel and it gets serious. Seriously, with Shane Jones’s wacko performance to farmers and now this out-there port wind-up, no wonder business is rightly nervous.

This port idea is shamelessly the work of Jones and Peters. It’s not just economic nationalism but is regional parochialism at its best – or worst, depending on how the future pans out.

NZ First wants to move Auckland port operations to Northport, in Whangārei.
NORTHPORTNZ First wants to move Auckland port operations to Northport, in Whangārei.

So will the roads be upgraded north of Auckland, and what trains are needed, and how can it be done when we can’t get a passenger rail system to Auckland Airport?

Peters has spoken publicly about the port report like it’s a done deal, and the money will come shortly. But how can this happen so easily if the same Government couldn’t build a few houses for the middle class? Taking the build out of KiwiBuild since election night 2017. 

Also no gain like a capital gain, as in the tax that sunk confidence but never went anywhere. And while we are at it, so much for ETS for farmers, because Labour suddenly froze.

The Whangārei port move is "shamelessly" the work of NZ First deputy Winston Peters and his colleague Shane Jones, writes Duncan Garner.
LAWRENCE SMITH/STUFFThe Whangārei port move is “shamelessly” the work of NZ First deputy Winston Peters and his colleague Shane Jones, writes Duncan Garner.

Anyway, the prime minister would hardly say boo about sinking the ports of Auckland into northern waters for fear of saying the wrong thing.

She hadn’t seen the report, but an hour later Winston was word for word all about it. So why was he all over it and the country’s most high-profile Auckland MP, who happens to be the PM, didn’t know anything. Is it deliberate and, if so, let’s drag her deep and demand answers.

It’s not a Government scared of trying anything and everything. Something has to work soon, if not in education, then health. If those then fail, maybe it’s in tax reform, but we know that answer, so maybe it’s on climate reform. Oh yes, the Zero Carbon Bill. That’ll do it.

Duncan Garner: "I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn't appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come."
SUPPLIEDDuncan Garner: “I applaud ambition usually, but this Government doesn’t appear to have a master plan at all. It has a series of massive work plans and ideas whose time may never come.”

I think this Government is dreaming, even on some of the small stuff. Standards and credibility matter, and they need to get busy, but they need to be believable.

Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, and I wonder how much voters can digest if it’s a repeat next year.

Stuff

Andrew Dickens: Latest ports proposal is rooted in politics

A leaked report has found that the Ports of Auckland should be moved to Whangarei.

The report details how the freight operation at Ports of Auckland is no longer economically or environmentally viable. It also says that if Auckland and Northport can’t reach a commercial agreement within 12 months, then the Government should introduce new legislation to force the move.

That’s a big call. A really big call.

To recreate a wharf operation 150 kilometres away from where it already exists is going to cost a pretty penny.  It makes dams and tunnels and trains that we’ve built so far look like children’s sandcastles.

To make it work for the next 100 years would require road and rail upgrades in the billions. Wharves and cranes in the billions. Processing and inland ports in the billions.  It would exponentially increase the traffic and congestion between Auckland and Whangarei.

Yet the executive summary tries to suggest it would cost just $10 billion.

Now I understand the capacity constraints the Auckland wharf is under and as the city continues to expand its population that capacity constraint will be exceeded uncomfortably.  But this suggestion seems half-baked.

And considering its implications you have to wonder who decided that this extreme course of action is needed and that if it doesn’t happen then the government has to step into commercial companies and tell them how to run their business.

Well the working group that is making this huge claim is chaired by former Northland Mayor Wayne Brown.  Now Mr Brown is a very skilled technocrat who has produced reports on all sorts of state organisations, and I’m not suggesting that he has cooked this report to suit his region. 

But appearances are important and having a Northland politician advocating that the biggest infrastructural investment in New Zealand should happen in his patch still has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Auckland Chamber of Commerce head Michael Barnett didn’t swallow that this morning on TV either, calling the idea political and not business. And we know politics always ruins and slows our infrastructure which is why our infrastructure is so bad and compromised.

That’s why an Infrastructure Commission has been formed.  It has a chairman in Alan Bollard and announcements shortly will come on how it will operate and what its remit will be.

When it comes to things like moving ports, the thinking needs to be free of any stain of politics whether real or implied. It needs to make sense now, in 10 years’ time, in 50 years’ time and in 100 years’ time. It needs to be made by unbiased experts not local body politicians

This is why I’m not buying this idea at this time.

Port Nelson getting ready to handle larger ships

31/10/19

Drilling of the seabed in and around Port Nelson is due to begin today, in preparation for the port to handle larger ships.

State Highway 6 at Rocks Rd, near Port Nelson.

State Highway 6 at Rocks Rd, near Port Nelson. Photo: RNZ / Tracy Neal

The port said contractors will be undertaking drilling investigations for geotechnical purposes, at the port’s entrance known as The Cut, and inside the harbour to the port’s northern wharves.

The port company’s environmental officer said the explorative drilling will investigate to a depth of 10 metres, and aimed to provide analysis of the seabed composition.

Kelly Leonard said it was needed before the company planned to dredge areas of the shipping channel, and before work began to extend the port’s main wharf.

Over the last three years the number of containers handled at Port Nelson has grown by over 25 percent, the amount of vessel visits has risen by 7.5 percent, and the size of the ships calling had increased too.

Almost 900 vessels visited the port last year.

Ms Leonard said it needed to prepare for larger vessels and their safe navigation. She said the plan was to dredge three new areas near the current channel, to increase the safety margins for larger vessels and expand the safe operating windows in terms of weather.

The works proposed would include giving vessels a simpler line of approach, as well as increasing the scope for turning vessels inside the lee of Haulashore Island, which offered some protection from the wind, rather than turning them in the area near the wharf, called the “swing basin”.

“In keeping with having the ability to accommodate bigger ships, and tying-in with the purchase of the new tug and redevelopment of Main Wharf North, concepts are now also being drawn up to create a more ideal approach and access to the port,” Ms Leonard said in the port company’s newsletter RePort.

She said the port was currently limited in its capacity to safely bring in larger vessels, and in order to accommodate the requests of shipping lines already calling at Nelson, the port company was currently doing initial scoping ahead of applying for resource consent to do the dredging.

The work that started today was being done by a drill rig attached to a barge, and was expected to operate for up to two weeks, subject to weather conditions

Ms Leonard said if the consent was granted the proposed work would be beneath high water, so there would be no visible changes. That included the areas adjacent to the Boulder Bank and Haulashore Island.

The port entrance known as The Cut separated the naturally formed Boulder Bank from Haulashore Island. The Cut was artificially created in the early 1900s as a shipping channel. It was originally 61 metres wide, and is now 150 metres wide and dredged every six months to maintain a 10-metre depth.

Ms Leonard said the reality was that larger ships were now coming to New Zealand, and Nelson would be limited in its ability to export produce if it was restricted to receiving on smaller ships.

“That adds time and costs for our regional exporters to then have their produce moved to larger vessels elsewhere, so it’s important we continue to serve the region as best we can and don’t get left behind.”

2017/18 National Freight Demand Study

The 17/18 Freight demand study, the first for five years, was released recently without fanfare. Here is a link to the report.

https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Import/Uploads/Research/Documents/National-Freight-Demand-Study-3-Final-report-Oct2019.pdf

There are many interesting findings, too many to list here. But in a nutshell comparing 2017/18 with the previous report period in 2012, rail volume decreased 17% (partly due to the Kaikoura earthquake), and domestic sea freight volume increased 12%.

Overall billions of tonne/km increased 10.5% from 29.51 to 32.62.

Samsung Heavy to Build Six Evergreen Boxships Giants

SHI, Evergreen signing ceremony

Image Courtesy: Samsung Heavy Industries

South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries has signed shipbuilding deals for Evergreen’s latest ultra-large containerships, valued at a total of USD 920 million.

The order was placed for the construction of six of the world’s largest container ships, with a capacity of 23,000 TEUs, by May 2022.

The giants will feature a length of 400 meters and a width of 61.5 meters. They will be capable of transporting 23,764 twenty-foot containers at once.

The order exceeds Samsung Heavy’s previous ultra-large container ship, that can transport 23,756 containers, delivered to Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) in July 2019.

Samsung Heavy said the vessels will be equipped with its latest smart ship technologies for low fuel consumption and safe sailing.

“The demand for ultra-large containerships is expected to continue as global ship owners have reduced cost through an economy of scale,” an SHI official said, adding that the shipbuilder is therefore expected to “keep leading the ultra-large boxships market.”

The latest contract has pushed Samsung Heavy’s orderbook to USD 5.1 billion so far this year. It now includes 35 vessels, meeting 65 percent of the shipbuilder’s annual target of USD 7.8 billion.

In September 2019, the Taiwanese shipping major Evergreen confirmed its plans to build a total of ten 23,000 TEU containerships at three shipyards.

Apart from the units ordered from SHI, the company said that China’s Jiangnan Shipyard and Hudong Zhonghua Shipbuilding would construct another two ships each. The value of the entire order stands between USD 1.4 billion and USD 1.6 billion.

World Maritime News Staff

Biggest cruise season looms, but NZ hasn’t signed global treaty to reduce its ship emissions

A record 123 cruise ships are set to visit Wellington this year, but New Zealand isn’t yet contributing to reducing global ship emissions. 

New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the OECD not signed to an international agreement requiring ships to run on cleaner fuel. 

Associate Minister for Transport Julie Anne Genter said  New Zealand was a party to MARPOL, (The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) however previous governments had chosen not to sign up to Annex VI which regulated shipping emissions affecting human health and the climate.  

Officials had investigated “the pros and cons” of signing up to Annex VI and the Ministry of Transport had recently finished consultation.

“I expect to take a recommendation to Cabinet on this matter before the end of this year.”

Last year, emissions from a single cruise ship visit in Wellington were the equivalent to more than  200,000 extra cars per day, according to Emission Impossible director Dr Gerda Kuschel. 

Her calculation found that was nearly more emissions than all of Wellington’s cars in one day.

The Annex VI will be in place for those nations signed to the agreement, currently 91,  from January 1, 2020. 

The type of fuel burned by diesel engines in ships typically results in higher amount of various pollutant gases and ultra-fine particle emissions, compared to car engines.
JOHN BISSET/STUFFThe type of fuel burned by diesel engines in ships typically results in higher amount of various pollutant gases and ultra-fine particle emissions, compared to car engines.

It would mean all cruise ships visiting New Zealand ports would need to meet much tighter requirements, she said. 

“That might mean that although more ships come here, the local impact might be much reduced due to lower sulphur fuels.” 

WellingtonNZ General Manager David Perks said it was “a very interesting time” for how to balance economic growth with climate change. 

New Zealand is one of just two countries in the OECD not signed to an international agreement requiring ships to run on cleaner fuel.
MONIQUE FORD/STUFFNew Zealand is one of just two countries in the OECD not signed to an international agreement requiring ships to run on cleaner fuel.

“It’s crucial that the tourism industry becomes leaders in sustainability as people become increasingly conscious of the emissions their travel produces,” he said. 

“They want to know change is being made in the destinations they visit to make it worthwhile.”  

MOT International Connections manager Tom Forster said cabinet would be receiving advice on potential Annex VI accession. 

“A decision to accede would be followed by a treaty examination, including a select committee process. 

Shipping has been highlighted by the Ministry for the Environment as an emerging issue, but the country has no regulation on air quality from ships.
KEVIN STENT/STUFFShipping has been highlighted by the Ministry for the Environment as an emerging issue, but the country has no regulation on air quality from ships.

“This will provide interested parties with a further opportunity to express their views.” 

The 123-ship season beats 110 in 2019 and 82 in 2018. In 2007-2008 just 38 cruise ships berthed in Wellington. 

Shipping has been highlighted by the Ministry for the Environment as an emerging issue, but the country has no regulation on air quality from ships.

The Marlborough District Council has previously said there would be strong benefits for the region – in particular Picton and the Marlborough Sounds – if New Zealand signed the global agreement.

StraitNZ CEO Louise Struthers said Bluebridge supported the signing of the treaty, and would be able to comply with any new requirements within its existing fleet. 

Interislander general manager Walter Rushbrook said KiwiRail made a submission in favour of adopting Annex VI. 

Kiwirail is in the process of replacing its ferry fleet with two new larger ferries, which will be capable of complying with international standards, including the Annex VI. 

“Having long-term certainty of fuel and emissions regulations is necessary as we embark on a major fleet investment programme.” 

Stuff

Moana Chief – media release from Pacifica

Pacifica are proud to announce that our new vessel Moana Chief, sailed into Auckland this week on her delivery voyage to begin a new life dedicated to the NZ coast.
We plan to phase her into service this week commencing with voyage 4132 departing Auckland Friday 20 September which will coincide with the departure of Spirit of Canterbury.
The Moana Chief brings over 50% greater capacity than SPOC (1700 teu Vs 1100 teu) and will operate on the same fixed day weekly schedule ;
rotating Auckland →Lyttleton →Nelson →Tauranga .
Pacifica’s introduction of additional capacity is a significant investment and commitment from our parent company Swire , and is a response to the growing demand for reliable access to the “Blue Highway” connecting key North & South Island ports .


As N.Z’s only dedicated weekly coastal carrier Pacifica are uniquely placed to offer a sustainable year-round solution for your wharf/wharf or door/door FCL shipments.
We also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the mighty SPOC for years of dependable service ; she never missed a beat during the hundreds of voyages around N.Z and we wish her continued smooth sailings in her next deployment.