Benefits of shipping:
Resilience for natural disasters or emergencies.
Ships carry hazardous / dangerous cargo more safely than road, rail and air.
15% of New Zealand's inter-regional freight is carried by sea
Ships can handle oversized, heavy and bulky cargo that road, rail and air can't.
Freight volumes are forecast to increase 50% by 2040.
It won't all fit onto our roads!
New Zealand’s total freight task: 278.7 million tonnes.
Coastal shipping carries approx 10 million tonnes (3.5%).
1.15m people are transported across the Cook Strait every year
The volume of domestic freight moved by shipping has increased 50% over the last 10 years.
Approx $28 billion road and rail freight is shipped between the North and South Islands each year
1 standard container Auckland to Christchurch:
road: $2200-$3000
rail: $1300 - $1900
ship: $850 - $1300
418,470 containers are moved around the NZ coast per annum
Shipping: one-eighth the emissions of road per tonne of freight moved
Benefits of shipping:
Lower emissions per tonne of freight moved.
Increasing total freight carried by ship by just 2% would reduce total transport emissions by 16%.
Benefits of shipping:
Greater control over our domestic supply chains.
Shipping: 60% the emissions of rail per tonne of freight moved
previous arrowprevious arrow
next arrownext arrow

Submission to MFE on the Emissions Trading Scheme review (2023)

New Zealand Shipping Federation submission to the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) on its consultation document titled the Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Shipping Federation supports a credible ETS that supports meeting our climate change targets. The Government recognises the ETS as its “main emissions pricing tool” and acknowledges the “critical role” it plays within New Zealand’s climate change policy. All Shipping Federation members face the cost of carbon through their fuel costs.

The Shipping Federation has several concerns with the proposals set out in the discussion document, namely that:

  • The review introduces significant political and regulatory uncertainty into the market and has the potential to impact property rights (if the Government does not rule out any retrospective changes to carbon units)
  • The discussion document fails to properly consider the other tools that Government could utilise to address its concerns with the role of forestry, and rather relies on substantial changes to the ETS. Moreover, the discussion document does not adequately explain why the Government is not considering other tools rather than relying on the ETS to limit afforestation.
  • The discussion document provides very limited and insufficient analysis of the four options, making it difficult to provide meaningful feedback on the options.

Read the document: