The third container crane

Press, 28 October 1977, Page 12

The third container crane

Canterbury people have expressed disappointment, even anger, that the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) has dismissed appeals against the decision of the Ports Authority to allow the Otago Harbour Board to install a second container crane. Not that the decision was unexpected. The Minister, himself a Canterbury member of Parliament, has made it clear that he was obliged to consider the national interest, rather than conflicting regional interests. In making what must have been a difficult decision, Mr McLachlan must have been convinced by the weight of evidence that a third container crane is needed in the South Island as soon as possible, and that the volume of traffic, the preferences of the shipping lines, and the rate of development of the rival container terminals, made necessary the choice of Otago.

But that cannot assuage the lingering feeling in Canterbury that the Otago Harbour Board acted prematurely in applying for a second crane as soon as its first crane was operating and some months before the Lyttelton container terminal began full operations When the Ports Authority decided, late in 1974, that the South Island should have two container terminals, it added a recommendation: “The question of further South Island container terminal development should be deferred for later determination, when the pattern of overseas trade, the future of the meat loaders, and experience with container handling at both ports, will provide a sounder basis for decision-making.” The Lyttelton terminal has been operating for only four months; no fair comparison can have been possible. The Otago board, and the shipping lines, have

forced an early decision with their assertions that the third crane will be needed in operation by 1979—the year in which the Lyttelton Harbour Board believed a decision might fairly be made about its location—and by estimates that the cost of the crane was increasing, because of inflation, at $lOOO a day.

Mr McLachlan’s decision does not preclude the Lyttelton Harbour Board from making submissions for a second crane here in due course. But the board will be obliged to demonstrate the need before expenditure of at least $4 million will be authorised. Both Auckland and Wellington are seeking third container cranes and the total expenditure in New Zealand on container terminals is well over $lOO million already. Once Otago has two cranes operating, the preference of the shipping lines for that port over Lyttelton must be enhanced. The Lyttelton board, supported by manufacturers, trade unions, and other interested parties, should be watching closely for any action by the shipping lines which appears to discriminate unfairly against the use of Lyttelton. Expansion of the container terminal at Port Chalmers will be of great benefit in promoting regional development in the lower half of the South Island. But neither Mr McLachlan nor anyone else will be able to argue that this is in the “national interest” if it brings about a decline of trade through Lyttelton, the port which serves the greatest concentration of population and manufacturers. Port Chalmers’s present advantage should be accepted with good grace now the decision is made; the interests of Lyttelton, Christchurch, and Canterbury dictate that Otago’s advantage should be as brief as possible.