Port reform without tears - the New Zealand experience

Economic Affairs

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 23-30

  Trebeck, David ^a  

^a ACIL Consulting Pty Ltd

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC REFORM; LABOR RELATIONS; PORT; WORKING CONDITIONS;

NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 0032815452     PISSN: 02650665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0270.00153     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. This article draws heavily on two ACIL reports I prepared at the time for the New Zealand Business Roundtable (the principal business organisation in New Zealand): 'Ports and Shipping Reform in New Zealand: Current Developments and Future Requirements', September 1989;
2. and 'Port Reform in New Zealand: a Mid Term Update', August 1990.
3. Donald T. Brash (1998) New Zealand's Remarkable Reforms, Occasional Paper 100, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
4. Hon W. P. Jeffries (1989) Address to the International Cargo Co-ordination Association, Annual General Meeting, Wellington, March 15 1989.
5. The Treasury (1988), 'Shipping and Ports: Labour Costs', Treasury Report 5427, 12 September 1988. $NZ1 is currently worth about 32 pence; or £1 is worth $NZ3.12.
6. If the cost at Flushing was set at 100, comparable indices were Zeebrugge 118, Brisbane 197, Melbourne 264 and New Zealand 312.
7. The Economist (1987) 'South East Asian Ports - Clever Boxing', 18 April 1987.
8. These were 'rights' agreed as part of industrial negotiations and sanctioned by the Labour Court. They were not rights in the formal legal sense, just as the Labour Court was not viewed as a 'real court'.
9. Ministry of Transport (1984) On Shore Costs: The Transport Handling and Related Costs of Goods Carried by Sea, Wellington: Ministry of Transport.
10. Hon W. P. Jeffries (1990) Address to Waterfront Reform Seminar, Christchurch, 3 July 1990.
11. The extent of the increase was not necessarily proportional to the reduction in waterside employment because the figures in table 1 relate only to the permanent workforce. In addition, stevedoring companies were able to supplement these numbers with casual employees, on a much more flexible (and therefore less costly) basis than previously.