Ms BURNET – My questions are around the Hobart port. We’ve just heard that $188 million of federal funding is allocated over four years for the Hobart berth 6 build, which is the subject of much interest. Hobart is an Antarctic gateway city. It’s an important part of who we are; it is also worth $183 million per annum to the local economy.
The initial cost was listed as $515 million, but we’ve just talked about $180 million. The back and forth means that the Australian Antarctic Division will now be paying for those upgrades to the berth. Who will be managing these works, and can you provide the likely cost and timeframe as to when these works will begin and the estimated completion date?
Mr VINCENT – Yes, it is $188 million to come from the federal government, but I will refer to the CEO for a bit more detail on that.
Mr DONALD – TasPorts will be delivering the infrastructure works – the upgrades to Macquarie 6. Making reference to the $188 million compared to the comment regarding the $500 million, $500‑odd million was not a figure quoted by TasPorts. However, I think I was quoted on ABC radio as essentially explaining that, in my view, some rather crude mathematics ‑ if you take $188 million and you put it in the bank for 30 years and apply a 3.5 per cent interest rate, and you had an operational charge, then you get very close to the $500‑odd million.
Essentially, from TasPorts perspective, the commercial proposal we have had on the table for a number of years, we feel that we’ve achieved, and we think that that’s of substantial benefit to TasPorts and also to Tasmania. Anything short of that would have been compromising our financial position, and we think that that would have been very unfair to all of our customers, when our role is to provide port infrastructure in a statewide manner.
Ms BURNET – There were other components to that. The timeframe for delivery – when it’s likely to start and the estimated completion date?
Mr DONALD – We are planning to take our board through the finalised business case in March, and from that point we will be seeking shareholder approval, given the level of investment exceeds $5 million – subject to shareholder approval, and I’m not anticipating that there will be any concerns there. Following that we’ll immediately commence our procurement process. I would imagine that that will take five to six months. We are certainly planning to commence construction at this point in time during the 2025 calendar year.
The other question you asked was the duration of works. That is still yet to be determined, and I think that that will be yielded as a result of the procurement outcome. One of the things that’s critical is that we maintain operations for our current customers, including cruise ships. We need to make sure that berths are available for the Nuyina and equally that we satisfy our cruise visitation for the benefit of the state.
Having an understanding of when the Nuyina is going down to the Southern Ocean and looking at the plans for the construction contractor associated with taking parts of those berths out of service to conduct piling operations, as an example, will inform the ultimate duration of completion. I would imagine it could be three to four years.
Ms BURNET – I have plenty of questions around Devonport and the Devonport QuayLink project, but we’ll come back south again. Minister, the northern access road is seen as a critical part of the Macquarie Point stadium project and will provide access to the Port of Hobart. The cost at January 2024 figures is $33.9 million and is one of many unfunded infrastructure projects associated with the stadium. I note that a letter dated 19 November from the chair of the TPC to Macquarie Point CEO Anne Beach requests more information for its consideration that the project is part of the Project of State Significance legislation and, specifically, the request is that roads or access ways used by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists move in between the stadium building and the broader network, including the northern access road. Could you provide the committee with detail about the importance of that access road to TasPorts and how any upgrade to existing infrastructure needs to occur, specifically from the Tasman Highway?
Mr VINCENT – Thank you. We’ve had some discussions on this in some of our meetings. TasPorts has a strong collaborative relationship with the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) and works closely with them to provide input into the precinct plan. TasPorts remains confident a stadium and working port can coexist and will continue to work closely with state government and the MPDC to support ongoing planning. TasPorts is very proud of its long history of coexistence between the working port and the community utilising the waterfront.
In relation to the northern access road specifically, TasPorts has worked with MPDC and Infrastructure Tasmania to support planning of the northern access road and as a northern entry point to provide access to the Port of Hobart. The northern access road will ensure a critical infrastructure connection from the Port of Hobart for continuing its operations. Anthony, is there anything you’d like to add around what’s happened there?
Mr DONALD – Just to reiterate your point, minister, that we have had some very detailed collaboration with all landowners in the area as part of the City Deal and we have contributed to the process where a whole-of-precinct masterplan has been prepared. That confirms, from our perspective, the need for the northern access road. For heavy vehicles and buses that come in to support crews, it’s really important that they are separated from pedestrian movements in particular. Safety is a really important aspect of our function and responsibility.
Ms BURNET – Who will be paying for that northern access road, minister?
Mr VINCENT – I don’t think those details have been worked out at this stage. It is still being discussed on how it will shape up. I believe I’m correct there.
Mr DONALD – That’s correct.
Ms BURNET – Currently, Evans Street is used to connect all heavy land transport traffic to the port at Hobart, apart from across the port apron before Kings Marina and Constitution Dock. With the proposed development of the Macquarie Point Stadium, are you confident that this access will be maintained for port activities during the delivery of any stadium project or decommissioning of the water treatment works at Macquarie Point?
Mr VINCENT – Before I hand over to the CEO on that, I haven’t been fully briefed because some of those plans have not been developed to a level that it has come across to various other ministries or agencies.
Ms BURNET – Part of the problem, yes.
Mr VINCENT – But I will just ask the CEO whether he’s familiar with any more information on that than I am.
Mr DONALD – I would recognise that there needs to be a level of detailed planning and traffic assessment undertaken to ensure that that is the case. TasPorts has previously undertaken a relatively detailed assessment of traffic, albeit quite a number of years ago, upon the establishment of the Southern Export Terminal, which is the forestry export terminal out of Hobart. During that process we examined what number of heavy vehicle movements would be required to support a million tonnes of log exports per annum, and we worked through a process whereby we then mandated that those heavy vehicle movements occurred outside of the morning and afternoon peaks.
Now, those traffic numbers, I think, would grossly exceed in any way, shape or form the number of heavy vehicle movements required for the construction of the stadium, albeit that’s just my opinion and I think there needs to be a process to validate that to ensure the ongoing operation of the port.
Ms BURNET – There are –
Mr DONALD – Sorry to interrupt, but I don’t see any concerns – from our interactions today, I don’t feel that there’s any resistance to doing that properly.
Ms BURNET – There are a lot of moving parts and major projects to be delivered in a fairly small area at Macquarie Point: the waste water treatment shift to Selfs Point, the delivery of berth six for the Nuyina, the Northern Access road, which is another major project for which we haven’t got any price tag or any responsibility of who’s going to pay for it, and the stadium. Given your recent experience with mega projects, with the Spirit ferries and infrastructure, how confident are you, Mr Donald, on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the most confident, that you will be able to deliver your projects on time and on budget and that you will have full access to your port?
Mr DONALD – I would say 10.
Ms BURNET – Ten? Goodness me. Unbelievable, but anyway.
Ms BURNET – This is an infrastructure upgrade for Bell Bay. How is it that for the Antarctic Division and Hobart berth 6 there was significant pushback from TasPorts and yet TasPorts is financing the upgrade at Bell Bay for the ship loader for woodchips?
Mr VINCENT – It is a common-user facility for the loader, but to come to your other point, we equally offered to finance the upgrade of Macquarie berth 6. It was the federal government’s determination in consultation with the Tasmanian government that a funding source be provided directly from them. Our proposal for in excess of four years was that we would debt-fund that investment.
Ms BURNET – Let me go back to Bell Bay and the woodchip ship loader. I’m interested to know – it was mentioned that there are three customers, I’m interested to know who those customers are?
Mr VINCENT – Midway, Artech, and Reliance.
Ms BURNET – Would you say that TasPorts are effectively subsidising the forestry industry with this project?
Mr VINCENT – I have no evidence before me to suggest that whatsoever, but I haven’t dug that deep into the woodchip industry.
Ms BURNET – It looks like you’re building infrastructure for them.
Ms BURNET – Minister, the Legislative Council report into the operations of TasPorts, which was done earlier this year, in Appendix E it goes some way to showing the upcoming maintenance project workload and cost for TasPorts. However, it is silent on many projects that Tasmanians should know about. Look at line item 129 for the Hobart Franklin Wharf remediation, it says that it will start on 15 May and finish 960 days later on 18 January 2028. We’ve just heard earlier that berth 6 in Hobart is going to take three to four years. It’s going to push any sort of stadium – or it will compete with the stadium delivery as well, with projects happening there.
CHAIR – Need a question, please, Ms Burnet.
Ms BURNET – It’s coming, it’s coming. Given that this is so important to Tasmanians, and they should know about these projects, in the interest of transparency, when will TasPorts reveal the costed 20‑year maintenance plan for port assets?
Mr VINCENT – This has been a fairly heavily done subject for quite some time now, highlighted by some of the major issues. When I was down in Burnie we spent most of our time on the Strait Link wharf, understanding some of the legacy issues there, a wharf that was originally constructed in 1860, I think. The blocks are still there, magnificent how they are still sitting there as the main structure of the wharf. It has highlighted in the issues with the side thrusters and the size of the ships that I mentioned in my opening address, and some of the situations that’s causing now. The one thing I have been heartened by, before I hand over to the CEO to give a bit more detail, is that the equipment that they have been using – both underwater and above water – and to highlight some of the ongoing structural things has probably acerbated a much heavier asset management list than we had as shareholder ministers and government probably realised. There are a lot of conversations taking place regarding that.
It would be quite comprehensive, and this is one of the things that some of the gentlemen behind me have raised as something that needs to be addressed a lot more. That 20-year plan is going to be needed for the government, too, to understand where the profits of a GBE are needed to be reinvested, to make sure that we have the wharf structure and other associated parts of what they look after into a place where we’re going to know it’s solidly going to be an advantage to us and not a legacy. But that’s going to take a lot of years of work.
I’ll just hand over to the CEO for a bit more detail around their asset management and what they’re doing to keep a closer eye on, and what has been available in the past.
Mr DONALD – Thank you, minister. We’re on a path of continuous improvement for our asset management maturity and heading rapidly towards ISO accreditation in that regard. We undertake regular and detailed condition inspections, we are collating all of the condition data, and we are assembling a list of infrastructure spend.
Ms Burnet, to come back to your original question: our current estimate of the 20-year pipeline of infrastructure spend required on just our asset management associated with our current assets is currently $621 million.
We have some challenges ahead. We have ageing infrastructure. We have some of the most beautiful ports in the world, and equally, some of the oldest ports in Australia. We also have the reality of low berth utilisation when compared to other ports nationally. What does that mean? We broadly have a berth utilisation that sits around 27 to 28 per cent of the time. Three quarters of the time, our berths are empty. When they’re empty, we’re not generating revenue we can then reinvest in our assets.
Our objective is to continue, year on year, to increase our asset management investment into our infrastructure, because we understand that that is vital for the ongoing freight movements and passenger movements that support the Tasmanian economy.
Ms BURNET – In relation to prioritisation, because something like berth 6 in Hobart ‑ obviously QuayLink and whatever happens at Devonport, but the prioritisation of that list and when that list will be complete and ready for public viewing.
Mr DONALD – Thank you for the question. There’s a quite lengthy and detailed answer, but I will attempt to simplify it.
The prioritisation of our investment will be dynamic year on year. We have a three-to-five-year plan and a 20-year asset management investment plan, and the prioritisation of those will be assessed year on year for the next year. We are moving away from having a capital investment program that is centric around the financial year. The financial year reporting is really important, but from an infrastructure project delivery or investment perspective, we need to be focused on the start and the end of every project. So, we absolutely commit to transparency on the forward-looking program.
The second part of your question was around prioritisation. We’ve been working through some of our sustainability obligations more recently, and one of the contributions that we’ll be making as part of the GBE reform is that we’ve put together an investment framework for non‑commercial assets.
We clearly understand that, from an asset condition or safety perspective, we need to keep all of our assets operational, safe and functional. We also have a raft of assets that do not generate a commercial return, but are really important to the community and really important for us to continue to maintain our social licence. We believe that we demonstrate regularly that we make good decisions on behalf of Tasmania.
However, we also recognise that there would be a benefit for us to have a framework that’s transparent, that provides a rating assessment, which then enables a prioritisation of investments around non-commercial assets. That’s something that we’ve shared recently with the shareholder minister, Treasury and the Department of State Growth. We continue to work through that internally and I would expect that certainly we will commence from early next month in sharing how those frameworks and prioritisation numbers are looking when our board considers business cases moving forward.
Mr VINCENT – Just before we move on, I might just say from a naive set of fresh eyes, going down to Burnie, it’s quite interesting. It’s not just asset management; some of the asset renewal is quite interesting. I found it fascinating that we can only take cruise ships up to 195 metres, but some of the cruise ships being built at the moment are well over 300 metres. If we look at SeaRoad, when they had to pull out of Grassy, it was because they had a bigger boat. We’re looking at the operations, what they do in and out of Devonport now.
So, it’s not just maintaining, it’s also about us having very much a focus on the future of what is needed in our ports, and that’s right around the state – to be able to service the state better and more efficiently with better equipment. I was quite surprised even at two of the docks – and you might remember which one – whilst they are in Burnie, they’ve got a slight angle on them. When you start to take the ships out, you get to a pinch point when you go further out. So the realignment of some of these things and some of the major work that’s got to happen will be surprising when we start to see longer ships in place and look at those sorts of things.
It was a real eye‑opener for me. I’ve always been proud that I’m trying to look in the future for some of the issues that they do have to deal with.
Ms BURNET – Minister, on page 45 of the TasPorts annual report, there’s the consultancy summary. I note that Paxon Consulting Group was paid $99,800, and I’m interested to know what the project was for.
Mr VINCENT – I will just ask the CEO, do you need to take some advice on that?
Mr DONALD – I’ll have to take some advice on that one.
Ms BURNET – Okay, I’ll go to my next question. Paxon Consulting Group is one of five consultants listed in Infrastructure Tasmania’s project assurance framework. Were they used in any oversight of the Devonport QuayLink project, and is this framework likely to be utilised when the AAD (Australian Antarctic Division) berth 6 is undertaken?
Mr VINCENT – I will refer to the CEO.
Mr DONALD – I’ll have to take advice in relation just to familiarise myself with what Paxon have done for us. I can confirm that we will absolutely be implementing a gateway review for the Macquarie Wharf 6 project.
Ms BURNET – So, that’s the gateway – that’s what you mean by the gateway review?
Mr DONALD – The gateway review.
Ms BURNET – Okay, thank you.
Mr DONALD – That may or may not be with Paxon.
Ms BURNET – But one of the other four consultants listed?
Mr DONALD – Listed by?
Ms BURNET – By the Tasmanian Project Assurance Framework, which is part of State Growth.
Mr DONALD – That’s something that we’ll take advice on and our board will help us to determine.
Ms BURNET – Can I have that taken on notice, please?
Mr DONALD – Certainly.
Ms BURNET – The oversights are obviously very important with any of public monies. I go back to the Department of State Growth report into berths for the new Spirit of Tasmania vessels and the project oversight and steering committee is discussed, and membership includes the director of project review and assurance. I’ve got a couple of questions coming out of that.
Is the committee reporting to the minister, to you, on progress, including on the project status, any slippage, the status of design drawings for construction, tender packages, supplier selection, supplier delivery dates, tender price and physical construction progress?
Mr VINCENT – Sorry, that was on the TT‑Line?
Ms BURNET – No, that’s on the berths for the Spirit of Tasmania vessels.
Mr VINCENT – That is a matter for the transport minister, Mr Abetz.
Ms BURNET – Okay, all right. Just in relation, then, with the significant problems associated with delivery of the ferries and port infrastructure, will the project oversight and steering committee of independent assessors be implemented with delivery of projects associated with the Northern Access Road and Hobart berth 6 project delivery?
Mr VINCENT – The berth 6 comes under TasPorts, but the rest of that development comes under Macquarie Point, which is under the minister, Mr Abetz.
Ms BURNET – Well, the Northern Access Road is clearly for access to the port.
Mr VINCENT – Quite correct, but it hasn’t come under – because the plans haven’t got to that point with the Minister for Transport, they are not before me at this point in time.
Ms BURNET – But as an Infrastructure minister, surely you would want the best oversight – that high level oversight and reporting, so that you have a hands‑on approach to this project management?
Mr VINCENT – Yes, and all projects of that size will go through a gateway assurance program now and, at some point, when they are developed, I’m sure that my department will be involved in that as well.
Ms BURNET – Well, it’d be good to see that list of gateway projects and projects going through that project oversight and steering committee, if we can take that on notice too, minister?
Mr VINCENT – Certainly.
Ms BURNET – My question goes to something about environmental regulation. It was reported this week, minister, that there was a spillage of fuel at the Hobart wharf, which was contained. In the annual report on page 50, there’s a section about environmental regulation and it was said that there were four statutory breaches on TasPorts land and managed waters. One of the spillages was PFAS, only a fairly small amount, but that occurred at the Port of Devonport. I’m interested to know how that was managed and what sort of monitoring after the event you might be doing.
Mr VINCENT – That’s an operational matter so I will refer that to the CEO, but it’s of interest. I noticed the spill that we’ve talked about and the wharf has talked about. It was around 10,000 litres and ended up being a venting problem of unknown amount of less than 100 litres and I think they’re examining that at the moment because there were other fuel vessels near it that didn’t vent the same way with the expansion and fuel automatically. It was quite a detailed summary of that the other morning, but I’m not familiar with the other matters so I will pass over to the CEO.
Mr DONALD – From my understanding, it was a relatively minor spill. However, I’d like to take on notice what we put in place in response and as a result for monitoring.
Ms BURNET – For the PFAS?
Mr DONALD – Yes.
Ms BURNET – Thank you. My second question is about standards at Bell Bay and ensuring they’ve been upheld. Who has the oversight in relation to environmental pollution from chemical storage and movements at Bell Bay? This is a concern raised by people who live on the other side of the river.
Mr DONALD – That would be a combination of TasPorts and our tenants and our operators or customers.
Ms BURNET – No breaches at this point?
Mr DONALD – I’m not aware of any breaches and I’d welcome any direct interactions or through yourself the opportunity to alleviate or to investigate any concerns anyone might have.
Ms BURNET – Minister, this follows on from Mr Garland’s question. Has TasPorts been asked to quote or bid for berthing Spirits in any of their ports?
Mr VINCENT – To my knowledge, until recently, no – unless that has changed in the last week.
Ms BURNET – They haven’t been asked to quote or bid?
Mr DONALD – No, we haven’t. I will add that I did offer the former CEO of TT‑Line the opportunity to provide further details required, specifically around the port of Hobart, that would have enabled us to provide a quotation or a proposal, and that communication was left unresponded to.
Ms BURNET – I see.
Mr DONALD – I will just further add that he elected to quote our schedule of port charges in the Public Accounts Committee as opposed to responding simply to my email.
Ms BURNET – Okay. In relation to the tripartite ‑
Mr DONALD – Sorry, I’m happy to table that through the chair if anyone would like to ‑
Ms BURNET – Thank you. Just in relation to the tripartite arrangement about environmental regulation that TasPorts has with MAST (Marine and Safety Tasmania) and EPA. I’m just curious to know whether that arrangement, which I think was coming up for renewal in September, has been renewed, and whether that arrangement is having any sort of review. It just seems to me that TasPorts regulating their own work is somewhat problematic.
Mr VINCENT – You’re probably correct in most of that. Something that TasPorts has been very open about is the conflict of that sort of thing. I had discussions before we came in here briefly and yesterday also with what needs to happen in the first part of next year to separate up those responsibilities. The contract has been extended to the end of the financial year through to September next year while we work through with MAST.
I’ll just read some of this so I get these points right, because it is relevant:
TasPorts undertakes marine regulatory functions on behalf of Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) and the EPA through a deed of agreement between the three entities. Under the MAST deed, certain regulatory functions are delegated by MAST and the EPA to TasPorts.
A lot of that’s around quick response.
In June 2024, TasPorts declined to further extend the MAST deed, citing concerns with regard to potential conflict of interest between commercial and regulatory functions. MAST TasPorts and EPA support the transfer of responsibility for the harbour master and vessel traffic’s service to MAST. These roles are central to the delivery of regulatory functions, which are the responsibility of MAST. The government, through the Department of State Growth, has worked with TasPorts, MAST and the EPA to reassess the allocation of these regulatory functions, and TasPorts has sought, and MAST and EPA have now agreed, to extend the MAST deed to mid-2025 to allow the transitional responsibilities to occur.
Through the Treasurer, we have offered a financial indemnity to TasPorts covering its exercise of regulatory functions on behalf of MAST while the existing deed is extended through to 30 September 2025. It should be noted that TasPorts has already indemnified the Crown for the functions it undertakes on behalf of the EPA. The deed has been in place for almost 20 years, and over that time there has been considerable change in the management of port waters around Australia.
It is something we’ll be working on, and the relevant ministers and myself are very keen to make sure that we have discussions over the next few weeks so that we move into next year with that moving ahead pretty quickly.
CHAIR – I’m going to move on to Ms Burnet. For those questions that were committed to being taken on notice, you will need to provide them in writing as well.
Ms BURNET – Yes, I will. Thank you.
My final question is in relation to workplace culture. In the annual report on page 20, it says that there’s a lack of diversity, with 19 per cent of women in the workforce at TasPorts. In the Legislative Council report I’ve referred to previously, appendices (H) and (I) determine in a workplace survey that a third of those surveyed point out major flaws with the workplace culture. Clearly, there’s a problem, so I’d like to know what is being put in place to address some of those issues.
Mr VINCENT – Thank you for that question. Having sat on that Legislative Council committee before changing ministries, I was aware of that. Also, I have been in close communication with my fellow MLC Ruth Forrest on that. It has been a point of several conversations.
I believe the CEO acknowledged it as something that could have been better in the past, but a lot of work has been done in recent years with the survey. You have to get to a benchmark with it all. I did read this out in response to the MLC report, but I am happy to report that the information given to me is that there is improvement in that area. Now that we have some idea of that, I would like to think that those surveys, on a regular basis, will address that.
There’s also the more operational side of things, and closer activity. I will ask the CEO for some more detail, as I don’t have that in front of me.
Mr DONALD – Thank you, minister. Before I do, I would like to correct an answer I gave earlier, if I may. The question was, when did the Chair tell minister Ferguson that I was aware? When did the Chair tell minister Ferguson that there was an issue associated with the Spirits? I think my answer was April 2023. I’m advised that it was May 2023. I thought it appropriate to correct that.
Our culture is something that’s absolutely vital to me and something that I’m particularly passionate about. The survey that was conducted as referenced in the Leg‑Co, was undertaken around two weeks after the departure of two much‑loved executives from within the organisation. I did consider, at that point in time, whether or not it was the right thing to do to proceed with the engagement survey, given that I knew that our people were hurting as a result of the departure of two well‑respected, loved individuals who had a significant contribution to our business, and came to the conclusion that that was more important than ever to test the temperature of our organisation and to get feedback from staff around how they are feeling.
Certainly, the results were not stellar; they were not great results. Certainly, we were expecting them to not be great, and in many ways they validated what we had observed and expected that the organisation was hurting. It was really important that we listen to our staff and that we then act on some of the feedback that we provided was around a need for an increase to visible leadership. There was a significant theme around our staff wanting to know and understand more broadly where they fitted in to the organisation from a corporate strategy perspective. That’s something that we’ve focused on heavily and implemented divisional and departmental business planning processes that go to quite some detail in ensuring that there’s a strong alignment between the organisation’s vision, mission, strategic objectives and then how each of the divisions and then teams piece into that. Going down to the level of some of those actions in accordance with strategies being linked to individuals in annual performance goals and objectives.
More recently, we have implemented again, an engagement survey with the survey closing currently. I’m advised that the participation rate has increased, which I’m very pleased about. I look forward to reviewing the results and I’d be happy to share them with the committee. I would just like to add that I would be happy to share them with the committee, but I’ll do so in a manner after, or reflecting the interactions that I’ll have with our staff first. If I provide them earlier, then I request that they remain confidential.
CHAIR – There were three people during the delivery of berth 3, the HBV joint project. There was the COO, the project manager, and a CFO who resigned in a relatively short space of time. What do you think that says about the project and staff culture? Through you, minister.
Mr DONALD – I think they were all three different examples. One individual, and out of respect, I’m certainly not going to name names, and I’m going to attempt to provide a generalist response because those three individuals provided significant contribution to TasPorts.
One of them, their employment was terminated by myself. The second one was due to a resignation. The third one was a resignation following the appointment to another important project within the state. I think that was a demonstration of the development of that individual and some of the success that that individual has delivered being recognised by another organisation within the state.
CHAIR – Just before I go to Mr O’Byrne for the next question, the minister’s indicated he’s received some additional information.
Mr VINCENT – In relation to the traffic in East Devonport there, the Department of State Growth is progressing a traffic assessment across East Devonport, including the impact on the Devonport local road network and the impact on the state road network, specifically the Bass Highway. State Growth is working with Council and we’ll be undertaking a site visit early in December, just to bring you up to speed there.
Ms BURNET – I agree with the acting chair that having that continuity is really important in boards and any sort of governance structure, particularly when you’re going through issues, so I want to support you in in that situation. The former chair had a background in ports but also in the privatisation of government businesses. I just want to make sure that that’s something that you rule out, looking specifically at that skill set, regarding privatisation in any future chair or board members?
Mr VINCENT – I’m certainly not familiar with any move to bring privatisation onto the board for that purpose. That hasn’t been part of any discussions I’ve had.
Ms BURNET – It’s something that’s it’s always in the back of my mind in relation to our GBEs and SOCs.
Mr VINCENT – We should acknowledge that with the review of GBEs, everything is being discussed, but so is strengthening Tasmania by keeping control of vital service industries into Tasmania. It certainly hasn’t been a discussion that I’ve had with anybody at this point in time.
Ms BURNET – Minister, there was an announcement recently about a potential merger of TasRail, TT-Line and TasPorts. Do you think that that is something that would be a good idea given that we are looking at significant governance issues and a review of a governance framework?
Mr VINCENT – It’s very important that a review takes in every aspect of business, including the way shareholder ministers interact with the GBEs. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to make my comments on that while that is still out in the public arena. I wouldn’t like to influence things either way there, but there are parts of the businesses of the three GBEs you mentioned that are similar. There are parts that are competitive. We will see how that develops once the information comes in.
Ms BURNET – After the governance framework is considered?
Mr VINCENT – Correct.
Ms BURNET – It wouldn’t be any anytime soon?
Mr VINCENT – No, there’s a timeline that we’ll be working through to consider those submissions. Anything like that would take a fair while to develop and happen, but I think we just have to wait for that review to be conducted.
Ms BURNET – I will just follow on from some of Ms Dow’s questioning. I would like to think that there wasn’t an embarking into that kind of looking at the merger before we’ve got the governance sorted.
Minister, there are many components to TasPorts. TasPorts controls ports, port regulation, an airport, and some shipping. It appears to have only recently seen the need for a formalised long‑term asset condition‑monitoring and maintenance system. Given that TasPorts owns and operates the 80m vessel, the John Duigan for the KI run, can you provide me with some information as to why TasPorts operates the ship? If we’re looking at mergers, is there the possibility of shedding some of the functions of TasPorts as well?
Mr VINCENT – Yes, everything’s on the table. I have to refer to the CEO for an answer on that, but there are some complications around continued reliable services to the islands. I’ll just ask you to clarify that a bit. I think it goes back for a while now.
Mr DONALD -Thanks, minister. We provide the bus island line service for the benefit of King Island and Tasmania, following the failure of the private sector. It’s something that we’re proud of – our efforts and our performance to date. I think I’ve said openly and publicly on a number of occasions that, as a ship operator, we make a great port company. However, I will say that we went from zero to 100 in a six‑week period. From being asked to set up a shipping service to having one operational, that took six weeks. That was a number of years ago.
We continued to refine the management of our service. Through the shareholder we’ve been advised that our objective is to continue to improve the financial performance of the business. Last financial year in particular we achieved the best financial performance of the business to date with a $570,000 loss. Prior to that we had experienced periods where it was several million, I think $3 million to $4 million loss comes to mind.
The difference between our service and the other two competitors that operate a service to King Island and back is that, generally speaking, the two other competitors operate when they’re full. We run a service where we commit to a weekly service, so we provide a minimum of 52 visits to the island, so 104 sailings a year.
In the last period the delays were minimal. I actually think, and I’m happy to be proven otherwise, but I think there were no delays to our shipping service whatsoever. There was, I think, one cancelled service due to weather considerations. Some of the considerations that inform the movement of the vessel are largely around animal welfare and making sure that we’re not putting the welfare of livestock at risk in any way, shape, or form.
But one of the complexities of owning and operating the Bass Island line service is that we compete with our customers. That’s not something that is easy to navigate. I’m absolutely certain that we do it in a legal manner, but it’s not a simple exercise in any way, shape, or form. The reality of the operation is that as we continue to improve our market share, that will have a negative impact on the market share of our competitors and that’s a commercial tension. We’re striving to take cost out of the business and to increase volumes, but the reality is is that we’re competing.
CHAIR – I’ll go to you for one more, Ms Burnet.
Ms BURNET – Thank you for that answer, because I think it’s getting to the point where something might be commercially viable for another organisation, might be the ‘get out of jail’ card in a sense. I have another question about the John Duigan. In your annual report, minister, there was the bollard failure at Grassy, so, I’m wondering if there was any damage to the vessel or any injury or compensation related to that as well.
Mr VINCENT – I’ll certainly ask the CEO for a bit more detail, but I’ve been over and had a look at that and, yes, it was awkward where the pressure was – this is where larger ships are and it’s a lot of work to put a bollard in. I thought it was a thing that was strapped to the wharf that you threw the rope over, but I very quickly learnt when I saw the masses of concrete going into the new ones and what is required for the tonnage capacity of those to handle some of the new ships. And I’ve just been handed that – and it did fail because of the Duigan pivoting on and putting pressure on that at all. They are replacing it. There are some issues with the replacement of those bollards, I think there are five that have been replaced?
Mr DONALD – I think five, yes and largely, sorry minister.
Mr VINCENT – I’ll hand over to Anthony on that because it’s not as simple as just tying up to the wharf as I found out when I was over there.
Mr DONALD – The number of bollards that are, I think, either reaching completion or imminently over the next couple of days or weeks will be completed, along sort of the wharf‑side of the berth – there are additional bollards that we are installing and/or replacing, which are some distance back from the berth that provide additional opportunities for lines to be added in more challenging wind or environmental conditions.
To answer your original question though, no one was injured. We proactively reported the incident to WorkSafe and have been working to ensure that we are designing and installing bollards that accommodate every possible sequence of loading through berthing and/or disembarkment.
Ms BURNET – Minister, your CEO has talked about $18 million in profit. I understand, from the annual report, that there’s a debt facility for $241 million from TASCORP to finance the delivery of the QuayLink project. Can you explain to the committee what sort of financial impact that will have in the longer term for TasPorts?
Mr VINCENT – There are certain things we have to work through there, both on dividends with the board and the long-term strategic assets in renewal. I think the CEO previously touched on the $240 million and that we have to wait for the other berth to be freed up before the full amount of that money is expended. I do not have the exact detail of where it needs to be, but that will be coming through with the longer-term asset plan. Where that sits financially is something the government will need to review, on annual dividends or how that profit is distributed back into the business. As we said at the start of today, with the size of that operation, the extent of federal or state money needed or the profitability of the business will be something we’ll deal with when that comes before us.
Mr DONALD – Through you, minister. The debt facility for the $240 million is subject to review by Treasury, TASCORP and the shareholder. It’s something that we review internally on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Certainly, from a cash flow perspective, it’s absolutely vital.
An important element of our consideration is that we want to continue to debt fund infrastructure investment for the benefit of the state, and it’s really important that this debt funding supported through sound commercial agreements, such that the next project is never the last one for TasPorts. For the benefit of Tasmania, we need every commercial project to pay for itself, essentially, so that we can continue to take on the debt required to invest in our infrastructure.
Ms BURNET – In relation to the impacts of climate change on wharf infrastructure and other assets, how are you addressing that? I mean, we’re getting more storm surges. I’m also curious to know about the onshore power and those international requirements. Through you, minister, to the CEO.
Mr DONALD – We have undertaken climate change risk assessments conducted at our primary ports. We have an understanding, with input from a range of different contributions, including through additional monitoring undertaken and data through the Bureau of Meteorology. As an example, we’re active in continuing to install monitoring devices – swell meter devices – that monitor the size and frequency of waves at some of our ports. We monitor the current in our river ports in a number of different locations. You wind the clock back five to 10 years – in some of our ports that was never done, but we’re continuing to do that.
We continue to increase the frequency of hydrographic survey. That’s really important, because we’re now monitoring and measuring – down to probably millimetres – the accretion of silt, sand and debris within berth pockets and the channels. Something that is really important for our responsibility and function is to make sure that our berth pockets and channels remain open. The frequency and occurrence of storms in the particular catchments, specifically around Devonport, anecdotally appeared to increase. Over time, I think that will demonstrate a need to increase the frequency of hydrographic surveys and dredging activities within the port of Devonport, continuing to ensure that the port is open for safe and effective movement of vessels and freight, in particular.
To answer your question about onshore power: that is certainly something we’ve committed to delivering, to support the Antarctic vessel in Hobart. There’s some really important interactions with TasNetworks that need to continue to occur in that regard. That’s absolutely important. That is an example of things that we will continue to consider and look at across all of our ports.
I will say that we have had onshore power in place, interestingly at the port of Strahan, for about five years.
Ms BURNET – My question is around the fishing fleet in Hobart. Victoria Dock is a very important component of the working port, and certainly has benefit to tourists as well. The fishing fleet rely on the land access from Hunter Street and Franklin Wharf, and leaving the harbour with the opening of the Victoria Dock Bridge. How is this impacted by cruise ship arrivals when cruise ships are in port?
Mr DONALD – There is a huge opportunity for us to plan ahead with our communication and consultation with the local fishermen around the arrival and departure times of cruise ships. Largely the cruise lines book a long time in advance. That’s great for us. That enables us to secure our resources, but also to communicate more broadly.
We have a cruise ship in port today and I actually saw myself the bridge open for probably five to 10 minutes at a point in time that enabled the movement of a vessel through the bridge. It’s not that we prevent the movement of vessels, it’s just that they need to be planned in advance.
I wouldn’t imagine that we would plan to close the bridge and allow a movement of a vessel during the peak period of movements of particularly international visitors.
Ms BURNET – In relation to management of pedestrians and traffic when cruise ships are in port, how much does that cost, and is that a cost borne by the cruise ship or TasPorts?
Mr DONALD – I’d like to answer that in two parts, but take the specific question on notice if I can, because I’m happy to provide the exact figure to the dollar.
I think that we fund the traffic management costs, but again, I’ll confirm that more broadly. It’s really important that, with many thousands of international at times or Australian tourists walking around the waterfront, we close off the waterfront to vehicle movements basically and protect the safety of those people. The traffic management service is also directional. It’s not just about the closure of the road –
CHAIR – The time allocated for scrutiny of this organisation has now expired. Thanks to the minister and the office holders and staff for your attendance. Thank you to the committee for your participation today, and thank you to the parliamentary staff for your assistance with this hearing. We can end the broadcast now.
