Jump to content


Another 85 meters

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Priscilla II

Priscilla II

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 851 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 06:33 PM

POAL living on borrowed time.

Here is their latest piece of spin;https://poal.maps.ar...f60639763828d2d

  • 0

#22 raz88


    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:18 PM

There is no Mooring Dolphin class at the Olympics so they have no interest.

We should release a story to nzherald that the class has been created. Guarantee they'll run with it without verifying.
  • 0

#23 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:42 PM

We should release a story to nzherald that the class has been created. Guarantee they'll run with it without verifying.

Funny but sadly I suspect that's a very accurate statement.

  • 0

#24 Simon



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 12:17 PM

Interesting and informative article on the dolphin issue from McGredy, Winder &Co (and copied here with permission)




Queen’s Dolphins – A Year in the Making


What a difference a year makes. One of the very first things His Worship Phil Goff did upon storming into office last year, before he was even sworn in, was to put an immediate halt to the building of a dolphin for cruise ships attached to Queens Wharf by a gangway. He had campaigned unambiguously against anymore incursions into the harbour, and this wasn’t going to happen on his watch, not on your life. It was a powerful and highly effective display of strength, clarity and determination of purpose.


Less than a year later, the dolphin proposal was back, and it had grown from one dolphin to two and the extension into the harbour from 75m to 85m. Worse, what had originally been an interim solution was now to be consented as a permanent feature.  And Mayor Goff? Well he had morphed from saviour of the harbour into Dolphin-Phil, the number one extension advocate. A change of heart he heralded with a towering speech to close the debate, in which he bellowed about jobs, and the poor and down-trodden that he had battled on behalf of for his entire life (n.b. these were his dramatics, not ours). And then the Council, that is otherwise so allergic to extensions into the harbour, dutifully voted 14-5 to support a hefty extension into it.


In our view, the dolphin decision was both entirely questionable and made through a rather shoddy process.  In the midst of the Mayor’s 180-degree, it had looked like the problem would go away when the Waterfront Plan refresh came up with the wonderfully named inner-dolphin (which would have been tucked under the existing wharf). The Port, however, managed to find another maritime expert who assessed that the solution was neither workable or safe due to tide and wind conditions.  And so, the Dolphin returned. The case put forward to justify the encroachment into the harbour was, to be honest, rather weak, containing a number of holes. But as it turned out, plenty strong enough to

convert the Mayor and enough of his colleagues. At the heart of the argument of those advocating in the interests of the cruise industry was the economic and employment case. The cruise industry has an estimated regional economic impact of $220 million a year, associated with 4,000 jobs. These figures come from Market Economics, the same consultants that estimated the marginal economic benefit of the dolphin at $2 million a year. To put that into context, that is 0.002% of Auckland’s current approximate GDP. Otherwise known as a rounding error.  In the debate, of course, advocates of the dolphin seized on the much bigger, industry as a whole, figures arguing that much of that would be at risk in a dolphin-free harbour. Which is simply nonsense, and certainly not something you will find anywhere in the 150 pages of reports that were provided to

councillors for their decision making. There were a number of other pieces of poetic license evoked during the debate.


Councillors had been told that the 348m Ovation of the Sea (which, last season, became the first quantum-sized ship to visit Auckland), isn’t returning after its scheduled visits this and next cruise season because it can’t berth. But, of course, in its remaining visits it won’t be berthing either. Which makes you wonder, really, doesn’t it?  The reality, according to industry insiders, is that the ship tends to ply Chinese and Vietnam ports and its appearance on routes involving New Zealand was the result of a dispute with the Chinese Government. A dispute that has now been resolved.  Similarly, councillors have been told that the 345m Queen Mary II (another visitor last season) is not returning to Auckland because it can’t berth. Curiously though, it will visit both the Bay of Islands and

Akaroa, where it will moor and tender. The attempted justification for this was that Auckland is a hub port and ships need to berth at a hub port. Again, disingenuous. If the QMII can visit two New Zealand ports without berthing at a hub while in our waters (which is what it will do), it could actually have visited Auckland without berthing as well.

And it went on. The dolphin is designed to facilitate visits by the next generation of quantum-class vessels (360m) - Oasis of the Seas, Harmony of the Seas and Allure of the Seas - which could possibly be heading our way in five to ten years’ time. What wasn’t mentioned at the meeting was that these vessels were commissioned, again, to predominantly ply South East Asian and Mediterranean routes.


But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a jolly good and ripping maritime yarn, or of perceived wealth and riches for all. The process of decision making also involved some alarming aspects. During the meeting it became apparent, thanks to work by Cr Chris Darby, that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had not been consulted or engaged with about the new proposal (or, it would seem, dolphins at all, ever). This is the Iwi that has Ahi Kā over the Waitemata Harbour and has always had very strong views on matters such as this. That they were ignored as part of this decision making is unfathomable, not to mention hugely inappropriate. Ferry operator, Fullers also wasn’t talked to as part of the council family’s work on the issue. If they had been they would have told of 250-ferry sailings a day from the East that will be affected by this extension into the harbour. That is 90,000 movements a year to justify, in five to ten years’ time, the possibility of three additional cruise ship visits. Again, this was only uncovered thanks to the efforts of Cr Darby.

One last interesting aspect to this that wasn’t dwelt on at the meeting, Queens Wharf is half owned by the Government which could, therefore, have a say on the dolphin extension attaching to it if they choose to. At the very least, we know that the leader of that government holds march in the street strength views on encroachments into the harbour.

  • 1

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users