ERA findings on Lyttelton Port Company restructure plan released
Photo: Maritime Union of New Zealand
The Employment Relations Authority has found Lyttelton Port Company breached its obligations to the unions and workers through a proposed restructure of its container terminal operations.
The ERA has ordered LPC to halt its direct consultation process with the affected workers.
Lyttelton Port.
It must instead engage in structured consultation with the Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) on the proposal within 20 working days.
The ERA ruled LPC's approach to developing its proposal to disestablish 35 positions, without involving unions, breached the requirements of the collective agreements and the wider duty of good faith under the Employment Relations Act.
MUNZ national secretary Carl Findlay said the determination is a significant win for port workers and clearly reinforces the importance of good faith and collective bargaining.
"This finding sends a strong message to employers that they cannot simply present a fully formed proposal for major change without genuinely engaging with the Unions who represent the affected workers,' said Findlay.
He said the collective agreements require a cooperative and collaborative approach, especially when jobs are on the line.
RMTU general secretary Todd Valster said the ERA's order for LPC to return to the table for structured consultation with the unions was a positive outcome for port workers.
"This is a good result for workers because it ensures their collective voice is heard at a meaningful stage of the process," said Valster.
"It means we can properly engage on the rationale, the details of the proposal, and explore alternatives that protect our members' jobs and conditions.
"Restructuring should not be presented from on high. It requires genuine engagement to find the best way forward for both the business and the people who make it run.
"This ERA determination reinforces that principle."
MUNZ and RMTU looked forward to engaging with LPC as directed by the ERA to ensure a fair process for all affected workers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Techday NZ
5 hours ago
- Techday NZ
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."
Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill could create global ‘ripple effect'
EV advocates warn of Chinese dominance as a result of cuts to credits in the United States, writes Grant Schwab. The cuts to Biden-era tax credits in the budget passed by the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives could stunt the growth of the nation's still-fledgling electric vehicle industry and create ripple effects throughout the global vehicle market, clean energy advocates warn. "Anybody who claims to be concerned about Chinese dominance in battery minerals and supportive of US competitiveness in that sector needs to know: This bill is absolutely devastating to that goal," Zero Emission Transportation Association executive director Albert Gore said. The credits are meant to stoke both the domestic supply of critical minerals and advanced battery technologies and the demand for products that use those materials, namely next-gen, zero-emission vehicles. Environment-minded conservatives argue that broader tax breaks — which would be less targeted towards EVs and critical minerals — and regulatory rollbacks are instead best for growing those industries, and that Democrats are wrong to catastrophise over the changes. But with significant policy whiplash looming, advocates said multibillion-dollar investments in key sectors could shrivel thanks to the harsh realities of competing with the United States' chief economic rival. They also predicted political consequences for Republicans if the Senate follows suit and President Donald Trump, who has been critical of non-Tesla electric vehicles, signs a rollback into law. "The plan passed by House leadership will make it harder to produce the energy America needs, while simultaneously putting hundreds of projects, thousands of jobs and billions in investments at risk — mostly in Republican states that elected them," Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan business group focused on energy and the environment, said in a statement. Even with those risks, House Republicans voted to pull back on EV-related credits in their tax and spending mega bill that passed along party lines on May 22 after all-night negotiations. The final version of the package seeks to eliminate four tax credits for EVs by the end of 2025 and modify another on manufacturing that industry leaders have said is crucial to building domestic battery prowess. The EV credits include offering $7500 on the purchase of qualifying new light-duty models, $4000 for used models, providing up to $40,000 for commercial vehicles and giving $1000 to individuals to install EV chargers. A manufacturing credit targets battery producers and upstream industries. Battery cells are each eligible for a credit of $35 per kilowatt-hour of energy they can store. Critical mineral miners, processors, purifiers and recyclers can claim a credit equal to 10% of their production costs. The bill proposes phasing out that credit a year earlier than initially planned and adding new requirements against the use of materials from certain foreign nations. "The production credit is critical for our industry, and it will be a significant impact for our industry if it goes away," Ford chief executive Jim Farley said at the Detroit Auto Show in January. "Many of our plants in the Midwest that have converted to EVs depend on the production credit". — TNS
Newsroom
27-05-2025
- Newsroom
Climate solution all but buried before it begins
It is sold as a bold step into the future, a technological fix to one of the world's dirtiest problems. But is New Zealand's climate solution, its first carbon-capture and storage project, over before it begins? 'Having read the submissions from the various companies on the Government's regulatory plans, it just doesn't seem like it's going to happen in the next four-and-a-half years before 2030,' RNZ's climate correspondent Eloise Gibson tells The Detail. 'Maybe after that, but I can't see it happening at a scale that's going to take the pressure off, in terms of having to cut our emissions. It's going to be one of the things in the Swiss army knife, I hope, but we are not going to be putting it out in the next couple of years.' The project, led by Todd Energy and backed by the Government, aims to capture carbon dioxide from industrial processes and inject it deep underground in Taranaki, at the Kapuni gas field, locking it away for centuries. The start date has been pencilled in for around 2027, and from then until 2030 it is expected to store a million tonnes of CO₂, with a further almost million tonnes stored over the following five years. It's a big part of the Government's broader plan to meet its legal obligations to cut emissions by 2030 – about a third of the carbon savings needed. But Gibson tells The Detail the project's future is now uncertain unless Todd Energy gets 'more money or less liability or a combination [of both]'. 'There is a whole raft of things that have changed, one is the carbon price is low compared to other countries … then there is the issue of the liability regime, so if there is a leak 15 years after you have filled up a field and closed it off, who is responsible for that … so there is wrangling going on around the rules.' Globally, carbon capture and storage has a mixed track record. Some projects, like Norway's Sleipner, have stored CO₂ safely for decades. Others have failed spectacularly, costing billions and storing less than promised. New Zealand's unique geology – riddled with seismic faults – adds a layer of risk. And if CO₂ does leak, it could undo years of emissions gains and pose unknown threats to groundwater and ecosystems. Then there is the fear that the method becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for polluters. But putting that aside, if the project does not go ahead in New Zealand, what replaces it so the Government can meet its emissions targets? 'I approached the climate minister, and he did stress that the Government takes an 'adaptive approach' with their emissions budget, which I guess means they can pivot if something doesn't pan out,' Gibson says. 'But given they have cut a bunch of Labour-era policies that could have given them about a million tonnes of savings – which is what they need if this falls over – they are not likely to start these up again and there's absolutely nothing on the table that I have seen that would fill that gap, that this Government would support, so it does give them a problem.' Ultimately, Gibson says she wants the Government to use 'everything in the toolbox'. 'I don't think this is a time to be ruling out solutions. But it's also not a time to be distracted by expensive solutions, when we have other stuff that we know works, right there.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
