Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Wednesday 14 June 2006

GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - Mr President, I rise to give support to the previous two speakers. I get frustrated and I get annoyed when things are pushed on us without any say. It is a basic principle of good business that you include all interested and affected parties in a decision that impacts on them. In this case it did not occur. I ask the question, why did it not occur? And I suspect that there are only about three answers to that. One is that there was a deliberate move by the Government not to involve the members of this House as to when those GBEs would occur, so it was deliberate, just plain forgotten or they just did not care. I do not know which one of those three it is but either one of them, to me, really does not put the Government in a good light as far as I am concerned.

Mr Parkinson - You are being a bit harsh.

Mr DEAN - As I said, I get annoyed and frustrated at what I see as ordinary behaviour and that is exactly the way I see this.

The Government made a decision not to have the GBEs in the first instance but that was fairly quickly changed by them. They got into crayfish mode here, Mr President, very quickly -

Mr Wilkinson - Into what?

Mr DEAN - Crayfish mode.

Mr Wilkinson - What's that?

Mr DEAN - Backed off at a million miles an hour when public pressure was exerted onto them and when this House, Mr President, indicated -

Ms Thorp - It was only after the Hydro issue came up; no-one mentioned it prior to the Hydro issue coming up. No-one had a grizzle up until then. There were weeks of opportunity to say something and nothing was said until the Hydro issue emerged.

Mr Harriss - Yes, because you were seeking to hide things.

Mrs Smith - Everyone had a presumption we were going to have them.

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. The honourable member for Windermere has the call.

Ms Thorp - This is very revisionist.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Mr President. It was just interesting that it was not until there happened to be some public display of discontent about the course that the Government had taken in not having the GBEs - there was a lot in the press -

Mr Aird - There was no expectation amongst members that they were going to go ahead; let us be frank about that. There was no expectation that they would go ahead this year.

Mr DEAN - No expectation? Yes, there was!

Mr Aird - No, there wasn't; no-one mentioned it.

Ms Thorp - No-one contacted us about the scheduling.

Mr DEAN - It was never indicated to me and the member for Huon has indicated he was never approached. It was never ever suggested to me they would not go ahead. I believed that they would -

Mr Harriss - Of course.

Mr DEAN - because of the importance of the GBEs.

Mr Aird - It was only the Hydro thing that drew people's attention to it.

Mr DEAN - It was just never discussed with us so I really do not know, Mr President, how the Treasurer can sit there and make that sort of statement because it was never raised with us. It was obvious the Government took it for granted that other members of parliament may well support them and they soon found out of course that that was not the case and not only that, but the public were outspoken about this as well because many members of the public see the importance of the GBE process and they speak to us about issues that they want us to raise during that process. In fact I have been spoken to by quite a few members of the public about some issues they wanted me to raise, so when that was indicated, the Government got the very clear message that we would not accept it and that the motion was likely to be passed in this House so they then backed off and reinstated the GBE process, but without any consultation with us and that is the point that we made. It was an inconsiderate decision and one that I have some difficulty in coming to terms with and, to be quite frank, Mr President, I would expect much better of a government.

Wednesday 1 November 2006

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ENTERPRISES - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 'B'

Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - Mr President, my contribution will be relatively brief in relation to this matter. A number of points have already been covered by members that I had included, so I will try to steer clear of those to my best ability. I support and accept the position put forward by the member for Rosevears. I must say I was rather annoyed and frustrated at the attitude demonstrated by members from that organisation - the TT-Line - during our process; I did not think it was warranted. I think they came there with an agenda and they acted out that agenda that had obviously been previously discussed and organised.

It was rather disappointing because when we had been involved with this same organisation, I think it was three years ago - in 2003?

Mr Parkinson - I missed that; are you talking about the TT-Line?

Mr DEAN - I am talking about the TT-Line.

We were challenged in a similar way then. I did not like it then and I certainly did not like it on this occasion, and I believe that in this whole process the member for Rosevears is, in fact, owed an apology for some of the things that occurred in relation to our hearings this year. It was pretty ordinary.

The member for Rosevears has mentioned the Press and their attitude here - and very clearly I think they are expecting us to try to grab a headline for them through our process, and very clearly that is not what we are about, Mr President. We are about looking at the facts.

Mr Parkinson - Certainly the member for Rosevears would not be about that.

Mr DEAN - He certainly was. He was making a point that had to be made in the proper way, and I did not think at any stage that he wavered from using the proper process and as one would expect a member of parliament to do it. As I said, I felt that he was attacked in a way that was not acceptable in the circumstances, and I commend again our chairperson for the way in which she handled that and got through the process.

I was going to talk on the purchase of Spirit III but I do not see much point in doing so other than to say it is well known now that the purchase of Spirit III was questionable and contrary to the advice of the Treasurer and I think the Treasury or the advice received from Treasury very clearly was proven to be right at the end of the day.
A number of questions arose during the GBE process as to why it ran at a loss and the patronage of Spirit III did not stand up to what was projected; it did not meet the numbers that they thought it would meet. A number of reasons were put forward for that and one of the very strong reasons was the severe competition of the airlines and of the cheap fares that were being offered by the airlines and in fact that they were offering a service where people could fly here, hire a vehicle, drive around the State and fly back at a much cheaper rate than they could come here on the Spirit III.

Mr Parkinson - And not even get seasick.

Mr DEAN - And not even get seasick - you are right. It is accepted that they do provide a different experience to the airlines: with the Spirit it is an overnight entertainment which starts when they board in Sydney or Devonport and they offer the service, obviously, of bringing a vehicle across as well. So it is a different service they offer, but -

Mr Parkinson - It is a great trip. People who take it generally do it deliberately.

Mr DEAN - Sure, but it was accepted that they were not competing and cannot compete currently with the airlines, and that is a problem. They also used the increase in fuel costs as being another difficulty that they had to get through, but when you look at that so do all of the other tourist operators - the airlines and everybody else. They have had to contend with similar fuel increases and they were able to do it and they were able to survive. One wonders why there is such a great emphasis placed on the increases in fuel as a reason they were unable to run at a profit as they were severely impacting on their business.

Mr Parkinson - Except it is a different business - the airlines have got a lot smarter too. They now fill up their planes before they allow them to fly, and they cancel them because it is too windy or something, and find any reason they can to cancel a flight so that the ones they do let go are full.

Mr DEAN - It is accepted and I take that on board and they did indicate that to meet time frames and so on there was a plan to move faster and burn more fuel and all of those things -

Mr Parkinson - You cannot do that with a ship. You cannot cancel the ship's voyage because it is not full; you just have to let it go.

Mr DEAN - No - you are right and I will talk on that in a moment.

Although the member for Mersey mentioned it briefly, not a lot was said about marketing during the GBE process and I sincerely believe that it is one area that TT-Line do not do well. That came out during our 2004 session where we also scrutinised this GBE. I did not think that they were marking it properly then. A comment was made and I still do not think they have got it right. Mr President, you might recall that you did some inquiry in the northern part of New South Wales and on the mainland.

Mr PRESIDENT - In Sydney, Parramatta and Hornsby.

Mr DEAN - That is so and very clearly the response from those inquiries that you conducted indicated that there seemed to be little support of organisations and businesses in those areas that were providing bookings for Spirit III and the promotion of Spirit III. There appeared to be very little contact with them from TT-Line employees and I believe that it is done very poorly by TT-Line. Very clearly if you support a business, if you keep in contact with a business they are more likely to support you. That was what was coming through clearly then and is coming through clearly from our discussions that we had with a number of people here in Tasmania as well. A number of people here said that there was little contact with them and they expected a lot more.

I will just touch on some of the comments from our process in talking to a number of those people who support TT-Line, those who are involved in the tourism market and from some other people. One comment was, 'Do not have much contact from TT-Line - probably twice a year'. This is from a business that deals with the bookings or helps with bookings for the Spirits. Another one was 'Pensioners like everybody have to pay up front, 12 months in advance or longer. Paying by instalments system would help with bookings'. I know that this is an issue we have taken up with TT-Line and it has been indicated at this stage that there may not be any changes there.

I believe that these are things that TT-Line ought to look at. There are lots of issues, I believe, that if they did take on board they may well increase their patronage of these ferries. It is all very well to say, 'No we are not going to, airlines do not do it'. It does not mean to say they should not do it. It is a different business and people book on the Spirits 12 months in advance and probably longer in some instances. A lot of people using the Spirits are from the lower socioeconomic areas wanting to take their vehicles with them. I believe it is incumbent on TT-Line to look at some of those things.

Other comments made were: 'Should be more flexible with bookings and upfront payments as many people using the ferries are the lower socioeconomic group'. 'Why were stand-by fares removed? They travel with low bookings, stand-by fares would help.' They feel they are not a part of Tasmania. There is an air of arrogance. They do not listen. They tell you. They dictate. If you had been involved in our committee, if you were in our discussions as previously referred to, you would have seen that message coming through strongly and clearly. That same message came through strongly and clearly in 2004 when we were looking at this GBE. This is from members of the public and organisations supposedly wanting to support TT-Line. Attitudes need to change and I think that is fairly clear. This is another comment made: 'Certain arrogance stems from the position they cannot go broke. The Government will always bail them out' . Whether it be true or not that is the perception of some people, some in the business of tourism.

I will now go into other issues that have been referred to or have been covered. I will just go on to security. There was a perceived lack of security regarding vehicles and packages being taken on board. In this day and age with the threat of terrorism it is believed that there should be a heightened level of security both during boarding and on board the ships. I believe that to be very, very accurate. The opportunity for the transportation of illicit drugs and stolen property on the ferries is real and I have no doubt that this is the means by which illegal trading, moving of property and drugs is occurring.

There are checks on aircraft travel that should be mirrored on the Spirits, in my opinion, and I am left in no doubt whatsoever that as soon as we have a security scare - a real incident or a real threat - security for boarding and on board will see absolute wholesale changes. It is a pity that we have to wait for that to occur. We should not have to wait. Security should be very tight on these ships - on boarding and off-loading as well there should be security and it should be there at all times. I will mention dogs in a moment. I was recently given some information and this is factual information where a hunter - a regular hunter and shooter - was able to bring back from the mainland on board the Spirit parts of an animal very much detested in this State.

Mr Parkinson - A fox?

Mr DEAN - I will leave you to guess what animal it was. The vehicle inspection on this occasion was said to be almost non-existent. At least on that occasion it was. This incident was disclosed to a government member whom I understand was quite embarrassed but whether or not anything has occurred to change the security since then I am not too sure and I understand that nothing has changed. This rather surprises me because this person made no attempt to secure and hide what he was bringing back.

Ms Thorp - But they are asked to declare; they have to lie about it.

Mr DEAN - I am saying that this person bringing that part back did not go to extreme means to conceal or hide what he was bringing back.

Mr Martin - They cannot inspect every car.

Mr DEAN - Why can't you, with dogs or what have you?

Mr Martin - To open the boot and go through everything on every vehicle -

Mr DEAN - I am not saying that. There are other means of checking vehicles - with dogs, in particular. They do it at airports and they do it with luggage at airports. Dogs jump over the luggage all over the place.

Mr Parkinson - It is a bit different with a boot-load of stuff.

Mr DEAN - I think that it can be done. There are ways of doing it; with technology the way it is, it can be done. So, the question is: can we expect to see improvements in this regard in the future? I say probably, Mr President, because we know that the budget for security has increased from $200 000 to over $5 million this current year to ensure all ships and terminal areas have approved security plans for level 1 - I am not quite sure on level 1 but I think it is the highest level of security; it is phases of security levels, quite obviously. I understand that that will bring them up to a level 1 security requirement, whatever that might be.

Mr Parkinson - If they inspected every vehicle with the methods they have at the moment you would never get on and you would never get off. There are hundreds of vehicles.

Mr DEAN - I do not know that that is absolute fact. With the numbers of vehicles that are coming in, I would have thought that you could have had regular inspections and if you had - you may need two lines coming off at a time or what, I do not know.

Mr Parkinson - You could randomly inspect a vehicle thoroughly but you would not be able to do them all. Perhaps one day you will put your vehicle on a conveyor belt and it will go through a big X-ray machine like some of the big containers do but you will not be in the vehicle.

Mr Martin - They have to try to do it in three hours. They have to have more lanes.

Mr DEAN - I appreciate all of that but I would have thought that security was a very critical issue and I have absolutely no doubt at all that if there is a security scare on board one of these ships there will be wholesale changes in the way security occurs. I think we would all accept that that would happen if there was a security scare. We hope there is not one but, unfortunately the way things are, that cannot be guaranteed at all.

Mr Parkinson - I was surprised to learn that baggage going out of the airport wasn't X-rayed until recently and I'm not sure that it even is now in every case.

Mr DEAN - I am pretty certain that in fact it is all X-rayed now.

Mr Parkinson - It's only very recent if it is.

Mr DEAN - About 12 months ago when I went out with my mother-in-law she had something in her baggage that she had to remove so that was picked up but whether that was just a random check or not I do not know, but certainly she had to remove an aerosol container or something along that line.

As I said, the budget has been increased to $5 million. We know that the security presence on board the ships has been considerably upgraded and areas are constantly being patrolled. I just ask the question here: does that mean there are now more security officers on board the vessels or does it simply mean - from memory, there were two security officers on board the ships up until recently - that they are doing more patrols? The Leader might be able to expand on that point in his answer to the debate.

Sniffer dogs are used from time to time and usually based on specific knowledge or suspicions, and that is the area that I have talked about and said that I would expand on a little bit. If airports have the ability to use these dogs on a fairly regular basis I would have thought that every sailing of the Spirits would have required sniffer dogs to carry out their inspection of luggage and vehicles in some way or another. I would have thought there would be a lot more use of these animals because criminals that use this sort of transportation to move drugs and to move whatever other things they are moving, have a good knowledge of what is occurring on the ships.

Information is passed to them from time to time very clearly on what is happening and they are able to avoid security by a number of different methods and means. There needs to be a lot of work done in relation to security to get this right on these ships. I think the way we are going with all the activity around terrorism and tightening up we ought to be going down that track.

I just want to conclude, Mr President, by saying that the GBE process is a good process, in my view, but we have a duty to do and we have done that, in my opinion. Our conclusions are included in the document that has been tabled. They are there for everybody to read and I do not think there is any need for me to go through those conclusions.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.