Mr BAYLEY - To continue this line of questioning, I hear you that the design specifications changed. It may have changed from 25.6 metres up to the current 35.1 metres. Are you saying that there was no level of dialogue through that process between AAD and TasPorts checking in on whether those changed specifications would preclude transit under the bridge?
Mr FERGUSON - I am not saying that at all. Engagement was continual. But it is only for the Australian Antarctic Division to decide on the specifications it wants for its icebreaker and that major investment is an Australian Government department decision. We respect those decisions. TasPorts has not just a commercial role here; its main role is on safety only in relation to these matters on transiting the bridge. TasPorts is here to facilitate that but it also has a secondary role, which is very important. That is the safety role which is legislated for the harbour master. Only the harbour master can make those judgments. I have no power to override those. Nor does the CEO have the power to override those, I believe. The harbour master's role as a safety regulator is a statutory role.
Mr BAYLEY - We can appreciate that, we can certainly appreciate the safety concerns. I am just trying to understand how this unfolded because it is obviously a very unsatisfactory and underwhelming situation. When did you actually tell the AAD that the Nuyina would not be able to pass under the bridge? Was it -
Mr BRADFORD - That was a collective decision. The simulations were done in the simulator at Launceston, led by the harbour master, our pilots and the masters of the Nuyina. The aim of a simulation is to test to fail all the aspects of the bridge transit both ways.
Mr BAYLEY - I appreciate that. When was that?
Mr FERGUSON - Three months ago.
Mr BAYLEY - Were you provided with -
Mr BRADFORD - When the simulations reached a certain point, the harbour master asked the pilots and the masters on the Nuyina what their view was. It was unanimous that she should not go under there.
Mr BAYLEY - Obviously, by then the ship is built and it is already on the water here and -
Mr DONALD - I might be able to give more helpful information. In order for the assessment to be undertaken - we might ask the captain, Mick Wall, to join us shortly to provide a little more information. But there were on water sea trials set up from the Derwent River for real time simulation with a virtual bridge set up. That was the first step undertaken. The second step undertaken in the final stages was the simulation that occurred at the Australian Maritime College. In order for that simulation to occur you need two things: you need a model of the river and you need a model of the vessel. The model of the vessel was not delivered until recently, which then drove the -
Mr BAYLEY - I guess that is the question, CEO. The dialogue between TasPorts and AAD was continuous, I think I heard earlier. Did the specs of the ship change? That is an AAD decision. I appreciate that. Surely that was communicated to you and a question was asked, 'Is this going to be a problem?'. Or are you saying that question was never asked: 'Can you remodel this, can you resimulate this before we build the ship, based on these plans, and tell us whether it can transit the bridge?'.
Mr DONALD - The simple answer is that it cannot be modelled until the model of the vessel is available.
Mr BAYLEY - It cannot be modelled off the plans?
Mr DONALD - No, because the model of the vessel replicates how the vessel will perform in certain characteristics and certain environmental considerations, taking into account the length, the beam, the draught of the vessel, the propulsion and how it performs in different environmental considerations. As I understand it, the model cannot be completed until the completion of sea trials, which are undertaken after the vessel is put into the water, basically. So, whilst there was ongoing communication between us and AAD, the beam of the vessel is one of a number of different considerations.
Mr BAYLEY - But you were able to give them conditional approval to transit on the original design?
Mr DONALD - It was conditional approval to continue to move through the investigation process.
Mr BAYLEY - I have a specific question around the risk assessments and the provision of information. On 28 February 2022, TasPorts announced that it had granted Nuyina approval to transit the Tasman Bridge following, and I quote:
… the completion of extensive and diligent risk assessments including complex simulation exercises and a peer review by a leading international marine consultant.
On 22 September 2023, an FOI request to the AAD for risk assessment documents relating to the Nuyina and Tasman Bridge compatibility assessments was refused on the grounds that the documents cannot be located or do not exist. Did the risk assessments take place and, if so, were they provided to the AAD?
Mr FERGUSON - Chair, I would like to introduce to the committee, Harbour Master, Captain Andrew Michael Wall, best known has Captain Mick Wall, to the table who can address the committee on this matter and any other matters regarding safety of our ports.
Mr BAYLEY - Noting, of course, that it is a result of an RTI request at the federal level. We are trying to understand the provision of information and why those documents were not able to be provided. There is no accusation around TasPorts, I am just trying to understand the situation.
Capt. WALL - Chair, minister, honourable members, that first risk assessment was conducted, as you said, back in early 2022. At the time, the assessment was conducted with the leading maritime company, Home Sea International, as well. That went to looking at - on paper and in simulation - how that vessel would fit through the Tasman Bridge given the dimensions we had at the time.
Mr BAYLEY - This is the narrower beam vessel?
Capt. WALL - As you said earlier, the dimensions around 25.6 metres of the actual moulded depth of the hull. The extreme width being the 35.1 metres - was the trigger then to look at the actual handling of the vessel as well.
The issue being the truncation and the delays of the vessel coming into service in Hobart meant we were unable to then do - as mentioned already - the on-water sea trials and the on-water trials of the vessel itself. Doing the on-water trials was the most important part of the whole assessment. Not being able do that, with the mechanical delays in the vessel's delivery, the ongoing return to Europe for the first electrical delays and the secondary delays with their gearbox issues having to go to Singapore for 12 months, that was the issue around the delay to the final assessment being done. It was then that the final assessment that we did during this year - not only at the maritime college but on the water and there is other evidence on the table today around the on-water trials, the way the vessel handled - which led us to the final decision of it being not suitable.
Mr BAYLEY - Given that, what do you provide to the AAD? What do the AAD physically get in relation to your work and those risk assessment guidelines? Do they get a report? Do they get a number of different statistics? Do they get your advice around how to address issues? What do they receive?
Capt. WALL - They have been party to and get the full simulation reports as part of the assessment, which are also an addendum to the report, from the Australian Maritime College. They have been given a copy of the non-standard vessel assessment from me. They have been provided with that as well. As part of that assessment, they documented everything that we went through - the whole process, all of the process from 2017 onwards.
Mr BAYLEY - Do you recall when they would have been provided with those documents?
Capt. WALL - I would have to take that question on notice if that is okay.
Mr FERGUSON - If I could ask Mr Bayley to please note that we will take the question on notice. If we can provide it during the hearing we will, although we may need to do that later in the week.
Mr BAYLEY - Thank you, Captain.
