Maritime Union of New Zealand

The Maritime Union has attacked comments by the group Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction (STIMBR) which downplays valid concerns about the use of the poison gas.

Maritime Union of New Zealand General Secretary Joe Fleetwood has condemned a statement from STIMBR (1 February 2010) entitled “Gas links with disease unfounded” that asserts there is no proof that methyl bromide is connected with motor neuron disease.

Mr Fleetwood says there is no proof as yet, but important new research into the health hazards of methyl bromide has detected possible links and there has been criticism of past investigations.

“On the one hand STIMBR is claiming no one knows what causes motor neuron disease, yet the very reason that further research is being done is due to possible links. As responsible employers they should be encouraging any new findings that build on current limited knowledge. STIMBR also quote outdated research in their public statement.”

STIMBR is made up of businesses that have a direct financial interest in the use of methyl bromide, but until recently had Government representation and financial contributions.

Mr Fleetwood says he is very concerned that the Government has until recently been officially represented on what was clearly a partisan organization that appeared motivated by the interests of private businesses, and which had no representation of maritime workers.

“STIMBR is not an industry group, it’s an employers group, managers who sit in offices a safe distance from methyl bromide fumigation. It’s a public relations cookup to portray themselves as reducing methyl bromide when they are the beneficiaries of its use. What Government agencies were doing involved with STIMBR is a major concern and we will be approaching the Government on this matter.”

In the October 2009 STIMBR newsletter (http://www.stimbr.org.nz/STIMBRNewsletter8.pdf), the Chair Gordon Hosking noted that government departments had advised they would no longer be members of STIMBR but would seek observer status due to perceived conflict of interest and “will be discussed further by the management committee.”

The same newsletter lists as its first item under “Specific areas of progress” the achievement of “Protecting methyl bromide use”, which seems an odd area of progress for a group whose name is “Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction”. Are they protecting the use of Methyl Bromide or reducing the use of Methyl Bromide?

A May 2008 newsletter stated STIMBR were “pleased to acknowledge contributions to STIMBR from organisations with a keen interest in methyl bromide reduction, but who are non-users of the fumigant. Noted in our last newsletter were Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Economic Development, Scion, and Crop and Food Research.”

New research is being carried out at Canterbury University where toxicology professor Ian Shaw has been reported as saying a link had been found which involved a reaction when mixing methyl bromide with a protective chemical found in human cells.

Dr Shaw has stated the study by the Nelson Medical Officer of Health should have looked further into the rate of port deaths from motor neuron disease which was many hundreds of times higher than normal.

Mr Fleetwood says that if it is proved in future research there is a link between methyl bromide and motor neuron disease, or any other illness, then the Maritime Union will be involved in any efforts to hold employers, Government and individuals (including STIMBR members) accountable and liable for any harm to workers.

The Maritime Union of New Zealand is hosting a public meeting on the future of the Port of Timaru. The meeting will be held at the conference room at “Robbies” (Hibernian Hotel), Latter Street, Timaru on Thursday 17 September starting at 7.30pm sharp.

All concerned local people are invited to the meeting, including port workers, unions, business, industry, farmers, and all those concerned with the future of the port.

For more information see the Port of Timaru campaign website.

The Maritime Union is asking where the Government and the Minister of Transport stands on the future of regional ports after Fonterra announced it was withdrawing from some regional ports in favour of transporting goods by long distance rail last month.

Jobs are under threat, casualization is hitting workers hard, and the viability of regional ports is under a cloud after the decision, which has created intense debate in the regions and the transport industry.

Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson says the union’s national executive met with a Fonterra representative earlier this week.

He says the meeting was a useful initial step but none of the issues had been resolved.

“We want to see Fonterra registering the fact they have a social responsibility to the communities they work with, not just a narrow focus on short term benefits for their shareholders.”

However he says the Government seems to have “turned on the auto pilot and left the bridge.”

Mr Hanson says that no satisfactory response has been forthcoming about the impact of Government investment in rail and how this could influence pricing, but questions were continuing to be asked throughout the industry.

“The Maritime Union supports public investment in rail, but if ports and coastal shipping are not receiving the same public investment, then this cannot lead to the most effective solution.”

Mr Hanson says there has to be a co-ordinated national strategy for ports and transport where Fonterra had a role but was not able to dominate for their own benefit.

He says the lack of response from the Transport Minister is a concern as it appears the Government had “gone to sleep” on a major issue in the regions and the heartland New Zealand communities it electioneered on.

“This is bigger than Fonterra. We are talking about the future of transport in New Zealand and if we leave it up to the biggest player to call the shots, then the result will not be a good one.”

The Maritime Union is pressing for “social responsibility” from Fonterra and a national transport strategy that works for the regions following the meeting between the union and the dairy giant.

Mr Hanson says that appears some progress has been made in Port Taranaki with extra work being found for the port by Fonterra, which would lessen the impact of its sudden switch to a long distance rail option.

He says that it is imperative that similar arrangements be made with the Port of Timaru, where job losses and the casualization of the workforce are occurring, with the port reeling from the loss of more than half of its container traffic.

The following resolution was passed this week at the national executive meeting of the Maritime Union of New Zealand in Wellington:

“The Maritime Union national executive registers its concerns at the actions of Fonterra in its arbitrary decision to stop shipments through Timaru and Taranaki and also the effect this will have on all the other ports”

“The Union will continue to campaign for a full and proper discussion among all stakeholders including ports, maritime workers, farmers, regional business, local government and national government to ensure that regional ports are not disadvantaged by Fonterra’s decisions.”

“Further more the unilateral move to bypass the environmental and commercially viable option of coastal shipping, is of further concern especially when New Zealand’s carbon footprint is of real concern in the future of NZ exports.”

The Maritime Union of New Zealand was formed in 2003 and represents waterfront workers, seafarers and related workers throughout New Zealand.

The Maritime Union says Fonterra’s decision to stop shipping containerized exports through Port Taranaki and Port Timaru was an example of how entire regional economies within New Zealand were being disrupted.

The recent announcement by Fonterra means the loss of 25,000 boxes of cargo to Port Taranaki in New Plymouth, and the loss of 24,000 boxes to Port Timaru annually.

Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson says the “overnight decisions” by Fonterra and major shipping companies are harming regional communities and regional ports through a process of “destructive competition” where ports experienced major and unpredictable changes in shipments.

“We have a situation where a major producer Fonterra and global shipping lines are working together for their own interests, but their decisions are wreaking havoc on ports and port communities which are subsidizing the profits of these conglomerates.”

Mr Hanson says the losers in the game are New Zealand ports, which were driven by short-sighted parochial competition and were played off against one another.

“It is a crazy situation. There needs to be oversight and regulation so we have a planned port industry that has stability rather than the massive waste of resources that goes into duplicating infrastructure and machinery for the sake of destructive competition, and the instability that it creates for skilled employment in New Zealand ports.”

He says the Union is arguing for a “KiwiPort” concept, where ports were integrated and nationally co-ordinated with a level of public ownership.

“Ports are New Zealand’s trading connection with the world, and as essential national infrastructure they are far too important to be left open to the short-term manipulations of private corporations.”

Mr Hanson says the big catch cry in the industry for the last 15 years is that smaller regional ports will work with major hub ports to gain efficiencies.

“The recent announcement is a complete change of direction.”

He says Port Taranaki and the Port of Timaru are close to production areas, whereas goods would now be sent hundreds of kilometres away by rail.

“The cost to the Port Taranaki is horrendous. This port when it was advised of the introduction of “4100 type” container ships to New Zealand went ahead and expended $20 million to deepen the port in order to accommodate these vessels.”

Mr Hanson says since port reform in the late 1980s, successive Governments have had a “hands off” approach to ports which has led to an unstable industry.

“There are heavy repercussions for the regions of New Zealand. Ports are surrounded by infrastructure that require the services of ports, ports have invested heavily in plant and port modifications to service container exports from their region, and business decisions in the regions are made on the basis of both these ports in full operational mode.”

But when companies that had virtual monopolies on shipments made overnight decisions that could “rip the guts” out of ports, it was impossible to run a rational long-term industry.

Mr Hanson says because of the dominant position of a company like Fonterra, it was immune to criticism as it could literally hold ports to ransom.

“What we are seeing is the destructive rationalisation of New Zealand ports regardless of national interest, secure jobs, economic development and stable regional communities, to suit global shipping companies and the short term interests of a dairy conglomerate.”

Reproduced with thanks to Mike Moreu

The Maritime Union of New Zealand says the collapse of free trade in dairy products going into the United States was predictable and inevitable.