Auckland poised as key hub with Southern Cross aviation project
Auckland offers a faster, smoother, and more humane alternative. Spin a globe, not a Mercator map, and Auckland becomes the obvious midway point. Yet we've barely begun to tap that advantage. NZIER analysis estimates the Southern Cross Project could bring up to NZ$1.87b in economic benefits over 10 years through deeper trade, freight, tourism, and education flows. These are not just forecasts; they are grounded in real trade data, airport capacity, and passenger modelling.
Airlines are beginning to take notice. China Eastern's Shanghai–Auckland–Buenos Aires service, launching in December, validates the route and is expected to generate NZ$48 million annually in visitor spending. Other airlines are quietly exploring similar opportunities to integrate Auckland into their long-haul networks.
Infrastructure is keeping pace. São Paulo's Guarulhos Airport—the busiest cargo hub in South America — handles 38% of Brazil's imports and exports in a modern, 97,000sq m terminal. Meanwhile, Auckland Airport is undergoing a NZ$5.7b upgrade, including a new integrated terminal and expanded runway capacity. Transit facilities alone have grown by 80%.
Marcelo Menoita, CEO, NZ Brazil Business Chamber
The timing could not be more opportune. The pandemic and geopolitical instability have exposed weaknesses in global supply chains. Businesses are rethinking logistics strategies, seeking resilient alternatives to overstretched hubs. The Southern Cross Project offers precisely that: a future-proof, Pacific-based bridge between high-growth regions.
Brazil, the world's tenth-largest economy, remains underexplored by New Zealand exporters. In 2023, our goods exports to Brazil totalled just NZ$127.4m. A direct air corridor could dramatically boost trade in high-value goods such as meat, dairy, software, and engineering services — while enabling Brazilian companies to access Asia-Pacific markets through Auckland.
There's a powerful human element too. Around 20,000 South Americans now live in New Zealand, many of whom endure costly, multi-leg journeys to see loved ones or conduct business. Improved connectivity would strengthen family ties, boost tourism, and diversify our international student base.
Sceptics point to infrastructure constraints or demand uncertainty. But Auckland already processes close to 19m passengers annually, and the current expansion will increase that capacity significantly. Strong forward bookings and active airline engagement confirm the project's commercial potential.
The Southern Cross Project is not just an aviation initiative — it's a strategic leap for New Zealand.
As Asia and Latin America grow closer economically, the countries that connect them will benefit the most. We can choose to lead or be left behind. The map, the maths, and the market momentum are aligned. What's needed now is political and commercial leadership. Wellington and Brasília must finalise the air-services agreement currently under negotiation. Industry and airport partners must coordinate to streamline customs and promote Auckland globally as the new bridge between continents.
New Zealand has long punched above its weight through bold ideas and global thinking. The Southern Cross Project is our next opportunity to lead on the world stage. The question is no longer if this connection will be built, but whether New Zealand will be its builder or merely a bystander.
For the sake of our exporters, our students, our families, and our global relevance — we must choose to lead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Kmart accused of links to slave labour factories
Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Health Community Responds To Shell's PR Company Winning COP30 Climate Contract
Brasilia, Monday, August 4, 2025:- Responding to reports that PR company Edelman, which handles the global PR account for fossil fuel giant Shell, has won a contract to provide COP30 media services to the Brazilian presidency, Global Climate and Health Alliance Executive Director Dr Jeni Miller said: 'Hiring a PR company that earns millions from downplaying the fossil fuel industry's role in the climate crisis, to handle communications for this year's UN climate conference where countries come together to negotiate global climate action presents a serious conflict of interest. Climate change is already causing terrible impacts to livelihoods, health and wellbeing around the world, with health systems being pushed to the brink.' 'With disinformation developed by PR agencies for fossil fuel companies driving decades of delayed action, allowing the climate crisis to worsen dramatically, COP host countries must take every step possible to keep fossil fuel influences out of these crucial climate talks.' Recognizing the profound threat that disinformation poses, just this month, Brazil joined four other countries declaring an 'ethical and political imperative' to tackle disinformation and other threats to democracy (English translation here) 'Naming the problem is vital. The next step must be to align action with those words', added Miller. 'Brasil should reconsider its contract with Edelman, and future host countries should take a clear stand that will avoid this kind of conflict of interest and prevent the influence of the fossil fuel industry on negotiations to deal with the problem that industry created.' GCHA is calling on Australia and Turkey, the countries vying to host next year's COP, to set a new standard for hosting countries by committing to: Not hire PR or communications firms that also have fossil fuel industry clients. No fossil fuel industry sponsorships. No fossil fuel industry representatives or former representatives in the presidency team. No fossil fuel industry representatives or former representatives in the host country's own delegation. About Edelman: Edelman has a long and well established history of helping health-harming industries. Until 1997, Edelman led PR for the RJ Reynolds tobacco company, using strategies to create doubt about the science showing tobacco to be harmful to health, and working to delay or fend off regulation. The PR firm has used some of the same strategies to create doubt about climate change, in support of fossil fuel clients. About the Break the Fossil Influence Campaign: Since May of this year, more than 60 health organizations have joined the Break the Fossil Influence campaign, pledging not to work with communications agencies that also support the fossil fuel industry. On Friday August 1st, two prominent health professionals, Edward Maibach and Dr. Jemilah Mahmood published an article on Health Policy Watch calling for health organisations to join the Break the Fossil Influence initiative by committing to work only with PR and advertising agencies that do not serve fossil fuel clients. 'This is not just a reputational risk—it's an ethical failure', they write. 'A health organisation that contracts a PR firm that actively helps fossil polluters is undermining its own mission. It sends a dangerous message to the public: that it's acceptable to fight disease with one hand while enabling its cause with the other. It's time for the health sector to show leadership.'
1News
16 hours ago
- 1News
Rocky road predicted due to Trump's tariff expansions, not least for US
The global rollercoaster ride of US trade tariffs has entered a new phase with sobering ramifications for many countries including the US. Auckland-based Economics professor Niven Winchester explains. The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase. President Donald Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods. On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. ADVERTISEMENT For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%). Table: The Conversation; Source: Niven Winchester (Source: Supplied) For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. ADVERTISEMENT GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. Table: The Conversation; Source: Niven Winchester (Source: Supplied) An economic own goal The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. ADVERTISEMENT The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the West Auckland builder sentenced over massive meth haul, fire on a commuter train, and how Bluey could teach kids about resilience. (Source: 1News) Global impacts For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. ADVERTISEMENT Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. Niven Winchester is a Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons Licence.
