Demise Foreseen

The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website | home

Demise Foreseen

As far back as 13 June 1992, Dave MacIntyre, New Zealand's foremost shipping commentator,

had a vision of Onehunga's future, which he outlined in his weekly NZ Shipping Gazette column.

With the kind permission of both author and publishers, that commentary is reproduced here ...

Onehunga - A Case For Compromise To Cut The Red Tape

by Dave MacIntyre

(published in the NZ Shipping Gazette, 13 June 1992)

Like many people in New Zealand and the rest of the world, I believe I am environmentally aware. Not an expert, but concerned.

I pay my annual sub to Greenpeace, chip in for special fundraising efforts and believe it is money well spent.

As a former political reporter I am familiar with the avenues and the hurdles associated with planning issues.

And, as a commentator on the shipping scene, I am interested in and care about the New Zealand ports industry.

These three separate elements - environmental concerns, planning bureaucracy and port economics - come face to face in the port of Onehunga. They could be meshed in such a way that each element respects the needs of the others.

At Risk

Unfortunately, it is my view that Onehunga is suffering because that balance is not being achieved. Unless something is done quickly, the port is at risk and jobs are in peril.

To understand why this is occurring, it is necessary first to research some of the background.

First, you have to realise that Onehunga needs to be dredged regularly, if it is to accommodate deep-water shipping.

Ports of Auckland held a water right for the disposal of dredgings in the Purakau Channel, a deep trench in the Manukau Harbour, where the silt is believed to disperse evenly.

That water right expired at the end of 1989, when the port company got an extension to dispose of up to 12,000 cubic metres up to June 30 1991.

Also in 1991, the port company lodged applications to dispose of up to 15,000 cubic metres of dredgings per year for the next five years. Applications to do the dredging itself were publicly notified earlier this year.

There were ten objections - six opposing and four supporting.

Objections

Objections are coming from groups such as environmentalists, local residents and the Department of Conservation. In general, their concerns relate to possible contamination in silts, effects on marine and fish life, and a belief that alternative methods of disposal should be looked at.

In particular, disposal of the dredgings on land is an option that the objectors believe should be pursued more vigorously. In discussion with the objectors, the port company has agreed to a "scoping study" of disposal options, as a condition to granting the disposal right in the Purakau Channel (a scoping study is less detailed than a formal research project).

So far, so good. Where the two sides diverge is on the request by the objectors for a full pilot study of land disposal options. The port company says "No", partly because of cost, partly because the study is not guaranteed to find a solution, and partly because of time.

It is time that lifts this issue from being a sparring

match among planning experts, to being a flesh-and-blood economic issue.

Potential Closure

We are talking about a potential closure to international shipping within three or four months. If nothing happens in that time, the fishing, LPG and cement operations could continue, but deeper-draught vessels could not.

If that sounds like an idle threat, think again. Tasman Express, now part of the Tasman inter-company agreement, has full vessels and has switched from Onehunga to Auckland even though Onehunga is physically a closer port to Australia.

Jackson Line has moved the same way. Other services under threat are Reef Shipping and NZ Coaster Services.

So, what are the rights and wrongs of this? Let's make one thing clear - the "greenies" are not in the wrong. They have a view of our environment that is not always fair and balanced, but is more progressive than most individuals. They deserve to be heard.

Neither are the port company, the shipping companies, the wharfies and everyone else who works out of Onehunga in the wrong. They fear the demise of a perfectly good and operable port. They deserve to be heard.

And, in all fairness, knowing the delicacy of the planning process in local government, I cannot knock the Auckland Regional Council for wanting all relevant information, prior to scheduling the hearing on the dredging and disposal issues.

There is fairness to be found in all of these matters, when each is considered in isolation. But I repeat my assertion - there is not fairness in the sum total. Three rights are making one wrong.

Time Factor

The reason I say that is because time is running out for the port of Onehunga. Time is a pressure that the environmental objectors and the regional council do not feel. But for the port, it is critical.

If, a few months from now, Onehunga ceases to operate as an international port, it will be a crying shame.

The solution, as I see it, is for the Auckland Regional Council to "fast track" the hearings. Not, I hasten to add, give carte blanche to the dredging and disposal issues. Who knows - the hearings might come up with conclusive evidence against sea disposal.

Even that would be better than the current situation. At least everyone would know the score.

The probability, however, is that compromises can be reached which satisfy (rather than please) all parties. Let's have common sense reign. Let's find those compromises before time runs out for Onehunga.

If not, there will be lots of human and economic injury. I am sure that no one, including the objectors, really wants that.

Site Editor's Footnote

How prescient were these comments! "Maasmond" made one call in July 1992, since when just five international visitors have called at Onehunga. And of course, time did run out for the port when time was called on freight handling at Onehunga on 30 November 2016.

History