|
|
?
Australia's National Sea Highway
A marine highway connecting our nation - well funded but not delivering
The National Sea Highway impacts nearly everything that happens in Tasmania. It's about the number of people coming to dinner, the number of shops in the main street, whether a school remains open or closes, how much tax you pay, whether your have a job to go to or not, more events to go to, more people to meet, more services and the price of those services, more frequent buses, who pays the overheads to keep the service stations open and whether the children relocate to the mainland forever, and much much more!
It was designed to ensure that Tasmania held the status as an equal state in the Federation. AIso, to give Tasmanians highway access to the national roads system they pay for. It's not just about leisure holidays for mainlanders staying in hotels and travelling in a car. It's about transport of people and goods and equality with those in the rest of Australia. And its about people across Australia having access to their own country. Also about making the whole transport corridor works seamlessly.
Its also about benefits to the rest of the nation.
Canberra, its Ministers and those that serve them should take head of the wishes of the people, their businesses and offers made by both sides of politics.
Our committees obtained Federal Highway equalisation funding to deliver transport equity by ferries to move people across Bass Strait at the same cost as travelling on connecting inter- capital highways. The funding should be applied to deliver that primary outcome and the Howard Coalition took responsibility to deliver it.
This opinion piece is not a paper designed to justify the introduction of equalised transport between States. That case was made by the writer and others before the introduction of the BSPVES and supported by the Coalition parties. Federal Labor under Prime Minister Keating also supported low cost passenger and vehicle fares.
The nation asked for the equalised movement of people, not just by offering on occasions, free or reduced priced shells of cars. it was supported by the 1996 Howard Tasmania Package. This was a Coalition paper. It was well written, and comprehensive and soon came with demand driven, uncapped federal funding to be advanced on highway equalisation principles. Any move to diminish the intent or operation of this scheme is not in the national interest and would be unlikely to continue the amount of support necessary to introduce the scheme in the first place. Any group suggesting any variance from highway equalisation principles can by advocating this do the the people and major interests harm. The principle of highway equalisation, objectively assessed, is the right and only basis for legitimately opening Federal Treasury coffers, treating all people and industries fairly. Canberra and Hobart should guard this principle rigorously. Other solutions can be in addition to highway euqulisation but should never replace it.
The National Sea Highway has for a quarter of a century, had the capacity to build a comprehensive ferry- based transport network connecting our nation, through Victoria to Tasmania. The well funded Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme 'BSPVES', on offer to any ferry operator, has the capacity to bring down the cost of sea passenger traffic to possibly about one third of existing total fares, change the economic future of two state economies and the nation.
It can result in a volume transport service for people and vehicle traffic justifiably opening up South Eastern Australia. It is already well funded at nearly $500 for each return trip with a car for any person wanting to cross. There are no limits on the number of crossings.
Both Victoria and Tasmania have to date made little use of the BSPVES when compared with its massive Federal financial commitment. This paper is written to encourage better use of the BSPVES as a sea highway based on the same cost and opportunities for highway travel that the billion dollar inter-capital road network offers the rest of our nation.
We call on the Federal Government and Opposition to make the BSPVES work as it was designed and not gradually erode the scheme. In doing so they, and the Federal and Tasmanian Governments, should release copies of two relevant documents, redacted if necessary, that show the huge economic potential of the scheme and by promptly reducing passenger fares.
It seems that the 'sea highway' concept has been used to extract ongoing funding from the Federal Treasury and the nation, but has been left largely in a policy vacuum thereafter. It is not yet delivering transport equity across Bass Strait. Australia can and should enjoy a marine highway network using the BSPVES in keeping with the huge Federal commitment. Advantages relating to defense and social and economic advantages may also be expected as apply to the American Marine Highway.
There is no alternative policy than can match the scope and advantages of this sea highway transport policy. Canberra's decision makers should head the advice of the nation. See Hobart Mercury 4th April 2022 ,pages 16 and 17.
The activism and the lobby for the BSPVES and Tasmania Package promises were not the usual single industry lobby. It was a lobby brought by the nation to enhance the well being of a whole country.
It should be dealt with that way. The people voted the Howard Coalition into government on the basis of the core promises of making Bass Strait part of the National Highway and offers of ongoing transport equity.
These offers, under the Morrison Government are seemingly being walked away from while funding under the BSPVES continues.
This is a paper designed to get the artery flowing to achieve a nationwide outcome.
Right now, we are advised that the Governments in Hobart and Canberra are looking at the issues we have raised.
The campaign for transport equality began with a letter sent by the writer to the Australian Financial Review on the 31st January 1992.
Water crossings in the history of settlement of our nation have been of critical importance.
Federal governance that ignores the enormous potential of Bass Strait and uncapped, demand driven Federal funding fails the nation. Transport links drive all industries equally and feed these industries.
These industries that are usually counted in tourist numbers.
Feeding mainly the accommodation sector and largely ignoring the direct driving force of a sea highway transport link restricts tourism numbers, if Tasmania were to use the ordinary definition of the word 'tourism'.
A trickle down impact of advancing the accommodation sector at the expense of a transport connection meeting the needs of ,industries across the board can lead to high fares, low volumes and continue many other impediments to crossing.
We call on the Australian Government to deliver highway equalised access by sea across Bass Strait without further delay or pay for the losses.
If Canberra can't deliver, in the way that we we seek, then offer Bass Strait as a Marine Highway using cruise boats as ferries for moving people only. The existing Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 'TFES' can cover passenger vehicles at whatever price a competitive market allows.
Summary of why it's not working - plenty of Federal funding but the Coalition's original policy setting is not being followed.Australia should be using a regular transport model to connect all states.Leaving a ferry based leisure connection to completely determine use of the Australian Governments only interstate land artery cannot be acceptable.Leisure connections are not right for broad-based economies.Tasmania and Victoria must be able to move people and all freight as freely as happens on all other interstate links. The people on the mainland still need to use roads to get from A to B. They are no different from Tasmanians. I note the comment made is about 'mainland customers'. What about those that don't travel. Perhaps they would like to access Tasmania too, if the price were equalised to get maximum value for the BSPVES payment. This is shown as a $500 rebate on the drivers ticket. Why was the well supported highway transport equalisation policy not already embedded? |
the existing Tasamanians Freight
A MOVE TO ERODE THE SEA HIGHWAY AIMS OF THE BSPVES WILL HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONSEQUENCES
Will not use the unfettered economy of all states equally.
Will savagely reduce the number of A toB travelers crossing interstate in both directions.
Leave the water barrier described as the greatest impediment to investment, population and jobs for Tasmania.
Will add holiday booking uncertainty to consistently priced highway travel.
Will deny major industries access to make their own selection of people passing the door.
Will not guarantee the same access as the Spit of Progress Bridge over the Murray River at Albury.
Will give air an unfair advantage over surface travel compared with other water or land crossings.
Will encourage people to fly over Victoria bringing few to use the road or public transport at either side.
Will damage the fundamental concept of t he National Highway of linking the whole of Australia.
Will be treating some waterwaysand some roads differently.
Will not be delivering critical mass to many private and public activities.
Will keep existing investments small and reduce the number of those activities.
Will separate families and friends.
Will give access to one industry over the needs of others.
Will not allow the accommodation sector to take advantage of economic activity generated by industries and activities that are usually driven by interstate highways.
Will stop the mobility of a nation by not treating Victoria equally with NSW regarding interstate travel through their state.
Will encourage light luggage travel with little capacity to make and then carry purchases.
Will keep people off the streets by not encouraging interstate through put of people.
Will not connect public transport links across Australia.
Will deny the purpose of two way Auslink and Austrade linkages.
Will not be using a major marine highway system effectively.
Will leave a well funded BSPVES with an almost meaningless test of success tat will always be met.
It will not highway equalise the people of this nation who are already funded by this scheme to nealy $500 a return trip with a car.
It will not use many of the 300 islands below Victoria to advantage.
It will divide a nation, at a time when every resource can be used to fully apply the Coalition's 1996 Tasmania package and boost the economy of two states, and more.
The Federal Government should not change the nation's sea highway equalisation policy.
instead of making it work!
Will savagely impact on the mobility of people.
Highways are designed for 100 years, why not water crossings on those highways?
As paymaster, Canberra needs to fix this. Two Prime Ministers have tried their best.
DISCUSSION
An intended ongoing Coalition commitment, already well federally funded since 1996, has unfortunately not yet been allowed s.to deliver its core intention
Funding is not being channeled to encourage the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme 'BSPVES' to deliver 'highway equivalent' transport fares by ferry.
By encouraging wing highly variable, cruise boat or hotel pricing of Bass Strait ferry fares, the nation's transport network is being compromised. This is limiting the movement of both people and vehicles across the Strait, in both directions, and reducing population, investment and jobs in South Eastern Australia.
The price of crossing is a major deterrent to the full use of our highway system. The impact of limiting such use is felt by or impacts on the lives and livelihood of our nation and is denying access to many businesses needing access to people.
The BSPVES has not provided benefits to a nation of all stakeholders, equally.
It's important that before taking money out of Federal Treasury that the money be directed to meet core election promises. These cannot be met by advancing money to a scheme but not ensuring it is directed to continue to meet the promised equitable objective of making Bass Strait part of the National Highway.
The BSPVES seems to have been used to mainly meet the needs of part of the leisure holiday sector in Tasmania, but not the needs of other major stakeholders and the many regular interstate road users.
By doing this the Scheme fails to drive at least two whole state economies and many major stakeholders needing access to people, as would a road. It seems that Canberra has mainly catered for those well known to use Bass Strait as part of their business. The needs of others who rely on volume people movement have not been heard.
The original document to set the agenda was the Coalition's 1996 Tasmania package. This document took an equalised highway transport view of crossing Bass Strait. It was to be an ongoing solution.
Since that time many departmental officers, committees and federal entities seemed to have little knowledge or understanding of the contents of the Tasmania Package. Reference to it is made to it including excerpts in a Federal Coastal Shipping Inquiry submission linked to this paper.
This package and Coalition party national resolutions outlined the reaso
n for the introduction of the BSPVES and the offer of highway equalisation for the movement of people crossing Bass Strait.
We later gained a suspicion of what may have happened.
The campaign for transport equity started in 1992. It has continued to today, and has many characteristics of the story line of the Judy Garland version of the 'Wizard of Oz' in hindsight and many of the biblical stories came alive on the journey for transport equity.
It should be noted that the tactics usually engaged in by a commercial lobby were not followed by the original National Sea Highway. Many interests across Australia grouped. The issue was put before the nation at a Federal election, twice.
It seems that Canberra has not worked much on this well designed scheme since its introduction. Canberra needs to very seriously regard the context of why BSPVES dollars were released. Also the need to maintain faith in democracy.
Both Federal Labor and the Coalition should recommit to the intent of the 1996 Tasmania Package to deliver transport equity over this route of critical importance. A failure to do so will trash the expectations of the nation. The passenger fare component needs to be addressed as does Canberra's reduced perception of who are the key stakeholders.
Open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia
18th January 2022
Dear Prime Minister,
We have been informed that the BSPVES is or no longer to be about highway equalisation.
This seems contrary to long standing Coalition policy.
Some of the key 1996 Howard Coalition promises appear on the Federal Parliamentary website. They have been included in a submission to the Coastal Shipping Inquiry. The rest have been sent to you.
For about a quarter of a century, the BSPVES has been understood to be connected with the delivery of that sea highway.
The solution proposed by Labor made no such offer. It supported lower passenger and vehicle fares. The Keating solution suggested ongoing surveillance by my Committee. Keating lost.
In 2001, the BSPVES was said to be enhanced.
Prime Minister, we urge you to continue to meet Coalition promises, but not with the type of implementation that has occurred.
A far too limited approach, in application, has been taken to the well funded flexible BSPVES.
Highly variable total fares, cars taken free, no controls over passenger fares higher than the cost of road travel, a link that doesn’t provide the same efficient links as a punt or road would offer.
Instead there are no incentives to restore the passenger vehicle ratio to use the BSPVES more efficiently.
Competition has not entered or been encouraged and the opportunity of introducing two separate ferry services on two separate routes has not been dealt with.
A sound and responsible offer by Prime Minister Howard of a low foot passenger hat would have increased the passenger vehicle ratio was rejected.
The 1996 policy was clear. We relied on it, as did very big stakeholders. A volume service is necessary to increase economic activity.
Nearly everything contained in the 1996 policy is now in place except consistently low highway based fares. This is the most critical element of the scheme.
Consistently low fares bring a volume service connection and meet the A to B travel needs of the whole nation.
As with all other interstate. Inter-capital highways, we expected the travel cost formula to offer ongoing fare consistency.
At no stage did we ask for it to be replaced by CPI.
We have now been left with a scheme with no objective way of assessment and no control over total pricing.
Such a well-supported policy introduced in 1996 should not be overturned in just a few years.
To reverse this policy by contrary application will be seen an affront to the Tasmanian people and nation.
Also to replace it with the most unsupportable practical application of a sound policy seems highly questionable.
In the absence of sea based competition lowering sea passenger fares substantially, we ask that you intervene and make the scheme deliver what was originally intended.
This will serve the nation, not by it being directed to meet very limited needs of some on one side of the Strait.
why walk away from a sound policy framework based on national highway equalisation and interstate transport equality?
Please fix the application of the scheme.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Brohier
Chairman of the former National Sea Highway Committee.
BASS STRAIT TRANSPORT EQUALITY -
A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
In 1996, the Coalition announced a long term policy to provide a transport corridor linking our nation.
It was followed by a scheme based on the Coalition's 1996 Tasmanian Package. The package was to extend the National Highway across Bass Strait, using ferries.
The scheme was to provide transport equality and equity between states, for people and also their vehicles.
It was said to be capable of delivering a 'sea highway'. making the Strait 'part of the national highway' network, between Victoria and Tasmania.
People and business supported this. In 1996 the people voted the Howard Government in on this key promise.
From that time, some have been confused about the purpose of the scheme and the uncapped funding it brought.
Some have then crafted the Scheme to focus on their needs, other than first allow it to meet its original purpose.
It is time the nation was told about this campaign and purpose of the huge uncapped federal funding and whether the current Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition will now act to restore the Scheme to meet its original documented purpose.
It calls on the Prime Minister to act by simply redirecting the BSPVES to deliver its vital purpose as part of the nation's infrastructure.
The BSPVES was introduced as a highway equalisation scheme. It was not a scheme to just encourage free cars, without passengers, or hotel pricing mechanisms changing fares by the hour.
The Nation will be far better served by focusing the scheme to drop passenger fares. Total fares can be kept at the same cost as inter-connecting road travel. Industries that need to make special use of the scheme can do so but not at the expense of other stakeholders.
Linking Victoria and Tasmania, with a regular interstate transport equivalent model is the simplest, fairest and most affordable way of transforming two state economies.
It can be in place in days.
Canberra has already funded it. The people largely obtained the funding.
They, and the rest of the nation. should receive the result of their efforts. All industries can benefit from a highway link, not instead of one.
As with a road, all industries or activities can use whatever additional incentives they wish to offer on ferries.
There are now two ports capable of being used on the Victorian side and at least two ports in Tasmania.
Each of the two ferries can cross the strait twice a day. In the absence of sea based competition or community service obligations they may be directed by governments to compete.
The policy surrounding the 1996 BSPVES requiring competition to bring down passenger fares in this regard can be delivered very soon using existing shipping owned by Tasmania.
To not do so will be an affront to the original purposes of the BSPVES and deny those crossing the advantage of all year low highway based fares.
Payments made under the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme 'BSPVES' are already available to those wishing to cross Bass Strait by sea. A sum of about $250 each way with a car is offered and shown as a rebate on the drivers ticket. This rebate is applied to every trip regardless of where a person lives.
Based on Coalition promises, every Australian has a right to see those payments directed by the Federal Government to move both people and vehicles by sea - equitably and efficiently, as on the National Highway.
When our nation was founded the sea lanes offered transport equality between the colonies.
As rail and road transport took over, ferries remained vital to link Victoria and Tasmania.
The Bass Strait ferry system is well funded and can be used right now, in a variety of ways to virtually eliminate the Bass Strait water barrier.
The Coalition's Tasmania package was well crafted and precise.
This was a vital ingredient of the public campaign for transport equity and the core electoral promise to the Apple Isle.
THE BSPVES WAS TO ASSIST AND ULTIMATELY DELIVER TRANSPORT EQALITY FOR THOSE USING THE ROUTE.
It was to result in a ferry-based transport connection to facilitate the flow of people movement across our nation.
It offered uncapped Federal funding to allow this to occur. That funding needs to be used to deliver the promised result.
We call on the Federal Government to make it do so and on the Federal Treasurer to ensure that outcome.
For example, people with or without a vehicle could drive or go by train between Sydney and Hobart via Melbourne for the same price per km as travelling on the Hume Highway. The route across Bass Strait by ferry would be the same as travelling Hobart by road or in the future, bus or rail.
Ferries would perform the same function as punts across a river.
The intention to start lobbying for this connection was published in the Australian Financial Review of the 31st January 1991, page 14. A copy follows.
A so called 'enhancement' of the BSPVES in 2001-2, by adding a few extra dollars. over winter, to fill ferries and indexing payments to CPI, appears to have been used as justification for destroying highway equalisation and not meeting the 1996 Sea Highway promises.
If Canberra still can't deliver highway transport equality, then the BSPVES should be put out to international tender.
Free car fares at the time of COVID have further complicated the simplicity of highway equalisation.
Canberra needs to bring the BSPVES to fully deliver equalised sea highway fares and tell the nation what it is about.
A PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY LINK CONNECTING THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY HAS ALREADY BEEN JUSTIFIED AND PAID FOR BY THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT.
The sea highway principle is the same as applies to all punts or bridges on interstate highways. The punt offers people and cars the same access as on the roads it joins, at the same price.
The Federal Government should target existing uncapped Federal Bass Strait passenger vehicle and freight equalisation funding to deliver a fair, basic and comprehensive surface transport link, using shipping, on the highway between Victoria and Tasmania.
A people led campaign obtained funding from 1996.
The nation has heard of no sustainable reason why the Melbourne - Hobart highways are not being connected in the way that was endorsed. There is no reason why a Coalition policy, so well thought out and supported, has been now been modified.
This funding was to deliver a sea highway for the nation, not for more subsidies for Tasmania or those capable of influencing its economy.
It just doesn't make sense to reverse the impact of the national BSPVES and the Tasmania package.
Maybe the conclusion we have come to is the real reason.
G​​​​​overnments have not clarified this. Various reasons are sometimes advanced for a federal BSPVES rebate shown 'n the drivers ticket. The closest to a sea highway has been that is that it was 'o pay for the lack of bitumen" or an advertisement, 'drive to Tasmania'.
THE BSPVES IS A HIGHWAY EQUALISATION SCHEME - WHY TRY TO CHANGE IT?
All cities and towns are connected to the National integrated transport grid, save for Tasmania.
Inter-capital, interstate links are Canberra's responsibility. They stay in place for decades.
Canberra funds inter-capital links across deserts and mountains. Also, punts and bridges as part of the National Highway.
This is not a case of Tasmania suffering the tyranny of distance or sffering as it is surrounded by water. It had been discrimination based on intervening terrain and Canberra's failure to provide equal transport links between all states.
Foot passengers, passengers in cars, southbound consumables, used household furniture, building materials, and ancillary vehicles, are also all not covered by existing Federal equalisation schemes. As a result the many and varied interests and reasons for travel of people are being ignored.
All people and freight inside cars and vehicles towed are covered by the National Highway. National Highway's cost our nation billions and drive whole economies.
So must our ferries. They were funded for that. Ferries and bridges can be used for many purposes but they must critically ,provide a transport link. There is enough money provided by Canberra to deliver this outcome under the BSPVES.
It'S ABOUT FULL DELIVERY OF A SENSIBLE COALITION PLAN
Federal equalisation funding seems now to allow Canberra to mainly serve limited sectional interests within Tasmania and is not driving the whole economies of Victoria and Tasmania. Government inquiries seem to be ignoring the 1996 promises.
Bass Strait is not managed by Infrastructure Australia. Perhaps it should be. Transport equity and the principle of equal links between states should remain paramount.
The economic impact of targeting this link was huge and immediate, and with no shipping capacity constraints. The BSPVES is Federal uncapped demand driven funding.
If Canberra is responsible to drive the economies of all other states by land-based links, why discriminate against Victoria and Tasmania because a water crossing is involved? Work on it.
The Victorian Government asked for an AusLink connection to Tasmania, and Prime Ministers Keating and Howard took significant steps to try to deliver low passenger and vehicle interstate transport equity.
This is an issue about the whole of Tasmania and its linkages between states and the rest of the Nation's right to National Highway access to Tasmania.
The BSPVES was introduced to deliver a 'bridge' using ferries across the border between Victoria and Tasmania as a piece of national infrastructure to be used by the nation. It was designed to better use valuable connecting infrastructure.
At the time of its introduction, the BSPVES was not to be a subsidy to Tasmania.
The BSPVES was designed to offer the same freedom of movement enjoyed by those connected to the rest of the land-based national highway network. Tasmania is a broad-based economy but has been kept small by lack of adequate and affordable transport links.
A SUPERFICIAL CASE AGAINST 'EQUALISATION'
It is in Tasmania's interests to support 'highway equalisation' and to tell the nation what the Coalition has done.
Tasmania is Australia's only island state.
All other states are connected to the National Highway network.
EqualIsation is justified to deliver the same connections as all other states enjoy. So is Victoria.
Freight is equalsised, why not people?
Arguments that Tasmania is disadvantaged as it's surrounded by water, won't wash.
Other areas of Australia are surrounded by desert. They will be justified in using a similar argument to compete with Tasmania for Federal funding.
Does Tasmania really want this?
Tasmania is justified in enjoying the benefits of a third interstate, inter-capital, surface transport link.
Victoria is entitled to have people travel through it to and from Tasmania, not just those who fly over Victoria.
Victoria is also entitled to a third AusLink corridor. Equalised people, freight and vehicles will give them that outcome.
Tasmania enjoys an highway equalisation scheme and massive funding for people as a result of excellent decision making by Prime Ministers Howard and Keating.
Tasmanians should not forget it. They should use the BSPVES to deliver highway equalisation - not try to erode it.
It some still need subsidies they should do the same as the rest of Australia, go with a begging bowl to Canberra.
Tasmania does not suffer any tyranny of distance or adverse geography that highway equalisation by ferry won't fix.
Recent moves by the former Federal Transport Minister to deny the highway equalisation objectives of the BSPVES and will remove any objective way of assessment of the scheme's current performance.
A reason given that the BSPVES will bring down fares just can't wash.
WHAT A HISTORY! TASMANIA CAN DO ITS PART.
The history of the campaign, including Coalition promises and possible reasons for the schemes amendment are contained in the link that follows. It is critically important for readers to get the whole picture.
Reading the following Coastal Shipping Inquiry link is critical to understanding this issue.
It seems that Canberra has over time, allowed the BSPVES scheme to be changed from its original aim of, providing a 'bridge' or sea highway based on highway equalisation, to one largely assisting some in Tasmania rather than be used as part of a vital transport link, focused on two-way national connectivity.
The change does not meet the original intent of the scheme nor does it set out an objective measure of success, in the absence of sea-based competition. There seems a poor record of consistently lowering passenger fares, to highway equivalence.
Why has Canberra done this? Prime Minister Morrison needs to explain.
Moving from highway equalisation limits growth on both sides of the Strait. This is not something that should be supported nationally and certainly not for two states that can encourage interstate flow through of people.
THE BEST OF THE KEATING AND HOWARD 1996 SOLUTIONS - BI-PARTISAN POLITICAL SUPPORT .
The current BSPVES, as applied by the operator, makes payments of about $250 each-way to all drivers taking a car by sea. This is paid as a rebate and is shown on the sea carriage ticket. The Federal Government commitment is therefore very significant. It covers every crossing by sea with a car on every ferry willing to cross and carry passengers and cars. In the absence of competition or imposed community service obligations, the payment does not seem to be directed to put downward pressure on the substantial balance of the fare.
We call on Canberra to so act if total fares cannot be reduced to highway fare equivalence. The Federal Government commitment to Bass Strait is very significant as its demand driven and uncapped. It is in reality far greater than shown in the Ministerial correspondence that follows.
We also call on the Federal Government, if it can't reduce fares, to consider making a quantum meruit payment or similar, to be paid to the people of our nation to offer them full highway equalisation. If there is no legal remedy, the Federal Government should change the law to enable such a process and remedy to be obtained.
There are also cheaper ways of funding a full sea highway connection.
We call on the Federal Government to restore the purpose of the BSPVES to fully meet its 1996 promises, not by further funding of the BSPVES, but by reducing passenger fares to the cost of road travel and by maintaining them that way. This will make better use of the BSPVES and existing infrastructure.
We are confident that a half an hours discussion between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania can achieve the desired result. We did that with Tasmania's Premier Rundle but were told the Commonwealth intervened regarding a low passenger fare. Prime Minister Howard tried to do so in 2001.See Bob Cheek's book a copy of relevant pages are shown in a link to the Coastal shipping inquiry attached to this paper.
The Rt. Hon. Scott Morrison
Prime Minister of Australia
7th August 2021
Dear Prime Minister,
The Coalition promised to equalise and maintain the cost of moving people and passenger vehicles by ferry across Bass Strait.
The BSPVES was introduced in 1996 to meet this objective. It was to be a highway equalised scheme available to all Australians.
It was not to be a subsidy to Tasmania. i am informed that the BSPVES is now to reduce passenger fares. It hasn't consistently done so to anywhere near the cost of travelling on the roads it connects, for about a quarter of a century.
It is also now said to not intend to provide a National Highway link nor to reduce the cost of crossing to the cost of highway travel. Why?
This is now to become a scheme that has not or cannot deliver its original justification, without adjustment.
By scrubbing 'equalisation' and not controlling the rest of the fare, it seems like just another subsidy.
The BSPVES was to provide a 'sea highway' 'part of the national highway'. In this way, it was supported by industry, both Coalition political parties and the people. It was a core promise to the Apple Isle.
The BSPVES, if encouraging the equivalent of a bridge or punt, needs to treat all industries and peoples, equally. It also needs to deliver the same efficiencies as road travel.
A focus on Tasmanian leisure holidays with a car cannot achieve the same result. The BSPVES was not introduced just as a car subsidy.
Prime Minister, we call on you to restore an effective transport connection, in the interests of democracy and in the nation.
Every resource is available right now and all it may take is a 30 minute discussion with the Premier of Tasmania.
The people of Australia provided the impetus and the funding for the outcome we seek. We call on you to provide the result and not allow highway funding to be diverted to serve purposes that do not serve our nation equally.
We do not call on you for any more funding.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Brohier
Chairman of the former National Sea Highway Committee.
IT'S NOT ABOUT A LIMITED DEFINITION OF 'TOURISM' USED BY TASMANIA - IT'S, ABOUT AN INTERSTATE TRANSPORT CORRIDOR NURTURING THE NATION
Victoria asked for an AusLink transport corridor to Tasmania.
Without it, Victoria is missing out of major interconnecting infrastructure links and the transit of people through Victoria. Victorians are being denied ready access to Tasmania and the islands around it. The following makes some useful points regarding target marketing.
EXCERPTS FROM A RESPONSE BY THE FEDERAL AUSTRADE AGENCY ABOUT A TRANSPORT - TOURISM - LINK TO AND FROM VICTORIA 13 th December 2013
THE NSH IS ABOUT A TRANSPORT CONNECTION FOR ALL
That was the stated objective between the Coalition and all major stakeholders, including the people.
The people understand that their funding is to meet this stated objective, not one adjusted by Canberra to be inconsistent with major objectives of a core promise?
The second TCCI economic report canvased significant benefits of a sea highway on both sides of Bass Strait.
Why does Canberra seem to be ignoring the objectives of the endorsed 1996 Sea Highway package at the implementation stage?
Whose will is being met that will override the sensible policies of a nation?
THE IMPACT ON VICTORIA CAN BE HUGE AND IMMEDIATE
To use the BSPVES most effectively, people from other states need to travel through Victoria.
The BSPVES is critical to Victoria and it is critical that a volume ferry service or services are run across Bass Strait. A number of ports may be used on either side of the Strait..
The lower the fares are the more people that will be attracted to Victoria and along all transport corridors leading to it.
The links to Tasmania will allow many transport routes and transport options to be offered.
As the region grows, TFES should be extended to south bound consumables and building materials.
Media coverage-
THE FOLLOWING WAS DISTRIBUTED IN SUPERMARKETS SOME YEARS AGO.
THE ISSUE WAS ALSO COVERED BY THE ABC7.30 REPORT AND HERALD SUN, THE ECONOMIST, REUTERS, THE AGE AND IN MEDIA ACROSS TASMANIA.
Many other people and organizations also indicated support for transport equality, including the PIK Committee, the CBSTE, The Committee for Melbourne, VECCI, TCCI, The Hobart Show grounds , COSBOA, ANRA, The City of Melbourne, The Geelong Chamber of Commerce, Patties Pies, Master Builders Association of Tasmania, Costa Foods, the Uniting and Anglican Churches and the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the Real Estate institute, Patties Pies, the Melbourne City Council, the Queen Victoria Market. of Tasmania, Caravan parks, Transport associations, and TT Line. Also the Labor movement through Jim Bacon and the Greens, through Bob Brown.
The following is a Federal Liberal Party national resolution passed in 1994.
Also, a similar National Party resolution.
THE PURPOSE OF THE BSPVES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY CANBERRA
No amount of Federal funding is relevant, unless it reduces the total price paid by people to access the Bass Strait crossing. The same would apply to a punt.
Also, fares to cross need to offer the same options and travel incentives as would be available on a regular bridge or punt, including a low foot passenger fare and an incentive to increase the passenger vehicle ratio. These fares need to be consistently applied all - year.
The impact of the BSPVES needs to be directed by Canberra nd not left to the discretion of a single ferry operator to move fares at will, determining the interstate use of the whole transport corridor.
Funding of the BSPVES is huge and needs to deliver far better results.
WHO SEEMS TO BE STOPPING LOW PASSENGER FARES, AND WHY?
Both passenger and vehicle fares can reflect an equivalent cost of travel to roads and should be maintained that way.
Every resource is in place to deliver the outcome we seek, in days.
We call on Government to restore fair access to the nation in return for the BSPVES payment made to the people and applied as a fare rebate.
The nation is suffering by the BSPVES not being sufficiently targeted.
The simple task of reducing passenger fares to road equivalence is critical.
The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 'TFES' was to equalise production inputs, why ignore south-bound consumables under this scheme and thereby, people and their needs.
They initiated and voted the Howard Government in to deliver a National Sea Highway. TFES and the BSPVES were to be parallel schemes based on highway equalisation.
Why try to pull the rug from people equalisation when economies more and more need people?
PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO CARRY CONSUMABLES IN CARS AS THEY DO ON ROADS ACROSS OUR NATION.
The BSPVES was to be ignored in calculations of fiscal equalisation between states. The reference in the scheme's name to 'Equalisation' is about highway equalisation. See the first two BSPVES monitoring reports.
We suspect that no contrary argument can be justified and little or no wide business or political support can or was obtained for reducing the BSPVES in the way it was done.
Freight and people share the roads. The movement of people is vital to a largely service-based economy and industries needing people passing the door, and critical mass.
Why largely single out a former penal colony for adverse treatment and try to favor some industries over others?
Why make people fight so hard for transport equity because of a water barrier when Canberra builds roads over mountains, rivers and deserts, then it just simply adjusts the scheme with a limited or insufficient explanation largely ignoring the public and other stakeholders interests?
IT'S A LINK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE
The connectivity of the road / public transport system across all of Australia is vital.
We also obtained bipartisan support for dramatically lower passenger and vehicle fares from Prime Minister Keating at the time of the 1996 Federal election. Prime Minister Howard tried a second time.
Interstate connections are vital and require effort by the Federal and State Governments especially where the stakes are high for each state. See Omega Transport Plan aph.gov.au
Victoria is well placed with about 300 islands right below it. It rightly asked for an AusLink connection to Tasmania. To our knowledge, Tasmania didn't.
The BSPVES is also available to private sector operators to fund trips on further Bass Strait services.
See also the Omega Transport Plan using the search engine at aph.gov.au reported in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald.
The transport Ideas have been endorsed.
AIR SERVICES SHOULD BE ADVANTAGED
Air services cannot justify any equalisation payments as they already compete with an interstate, well funded highway network, offering equalisation between all states except for the link between Victoria and Tasmania.
We suspect the more effective are surface connections, the more viable are the economies at either end and the more demand for air travel.
The nation should not be left divided and without confidence that what was endorsed at the ballot box will be delivered.
HOWARD AND KEATING KNEW WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT.
We commend Prime Minister Howard and Keating for their 1996 offers and subsequent funding of the BSPVES.
Prior to 1996, TT Line agreed with the expectation that highway equivalence would have a significant positive economic impact on many regions of South Eastern Australia, before the BSPVES was introduced.
We still hold that view.
See TCCI reports prepared, one prior to the introduction of the BSPVES the other, after it.
We have seen nothing to justify the change made in 1992 nor fully understand the resistance to lower sea passenger fares.
With so much funding going into Bass Strait there is no reason why the scheme can't deliver the outcome that was promised.
Yes, the BSPVES does arithmetically lower fares, as any rebate would. But far more than that is needed to justify or meet the Coalition promises.
Sea fares, adjusted by the hour and value added vessels and services, possibly aimed at a Tasmanian leisure holiday market, should not be set by Canberra to replace consistently low highway fares capable of driving passenger traffic in both directions.
SHOULD A SINGLE 'PUNT' OPERATOR CONTROLTHE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE ON AN INTERSTATE INTER - CAPITAL HIGHWAY?
The Federal Government should not leave access and access prices to the will of a single operator where so much is at stake.
It seems that Prime Minister Abbott also called on the ACCC to investigate but, due to time constraints they couldn't do so.
Delivery of the Coalition's original National Sea Highway policy, without reversal, is necessary and would be greatly appreciated.
If necessary, we suggest adding community service obligations, in the absence of expected sea-based competition.
Alternatively, two ferry services can be run, one out of Melbourne and one out of Geelong, in competition with each other.
TRANSPARENT CHANGES WERE NOT MADE
Major policy changes relating to national infrastructure should be made transparent and endorsed by the nation. They should be subjected to an objective performance test.
The change in this policy away from highway equalisationf in 2002, and their adverse impact were not apparent.
Monitoring of the BSPVES needs to be in keeping with highway equalisation and we urge the Prime Minister to apply necessary ground rules based on the equalisation and highway promises that were given and which were relied upon by our nation.
By doing so, he will be strengthening or restoring faith in the working of democracy and the future governance of our nation.
We call on the current Prime Minister to reverse the decision made by his the former Minister for Transport.
Alternatively, the Federal Government can use the BSPVES funding for an international shipping tender to meet its National Sea Highway transport obligations.
This will allow Tasmania to do what it likes with its ferries.
Over the last 30 years, we have obtained the right policy and uncapped BSPVES funding at election time from two Prime Ministers.
We feel that our reasonable request, and those of our supporters, ought then be met. The Coalition's 1996 policy should be met. All that is needed is to reduce passenger fares.
How can we go time and time again and get outcomes that are then not directed to meet our needs, and the needs of our nation?
Tasmania has unnecessarily suffered from a policy delivering a closed border for a long time.
From 1996, this should have been fixed.
Note the following letter. Australian Financial Review 31st January 1992, Page 14.
Nearly every thing asked for in this Letter to the Editor is in place, except for consistently low highway- based passenger fares.
Covid 19 has shown the impact of closing borders. As far as surface transport is concerned, Tasmania has experienced a type of 'closed' border for decades.
|
|
https://www.examiner.co.au/st
30 years later, why hasn't a well crafted and resourced, billion - dollar transport scheme, been allowed to deliver the anticipated result?
Will the Morrison Government leave a legacy of uniting the nation or unjustifiably keep it apart?
Will the interstate highway be left to the uncertainty of hotel type pricing?
It is not appropriate to have an interstate highway blocked through variable pricing, apparently set by a single ferry operator or by one state government.
Canberra needs to direct the BSPVES to provide an all-year every- day transport suitable for the needs of the whole nation.
Roads service many industries and the people and the National Sea Highway needs to do the same.
|
Motivation for such a long campaign
OPINION
Connecting religion with politics
There are spectators and supporters. Many know the rules and back a team. A few are players risking injury or worse. Each group seems to have a different perspective.
Ephesians 6 calls us to engage as players wearing a breastplate of righteousness, carry the sword of the spirit, and fight against principalities and powers, and people in high places.
The golden rule, having foundations in the Old Testament, and restated in the New, instructs us to live a life with God for humanity.
Stories are told of characters in both the New and Old Testament. Many have seen these as fiction or allegory. In essence, some are the same type of story, a story with an outward focus impacting people. Some describe a journey of nation building. Many stories seem God ordained and directed.
I took the advice of the text in Ephesians.
I ‘fought’ people in high places, over nation building to deliver transport equity aimed at benefiting the Australian people and in particular, Tasmania, a former British penal colony and Australia’s only island state.
In this long and rigorous journey, part of the Jonah story became initially relevant. I wanted to give up. Then some elements of the Noah story seemed to apply.. Then parts of the Moses story, the story of Job, then Christ, then Judas, Jacob, the years in the wilderness, deception, then remarkable success, mockery, and denial of history.
The elements of many of these stories seemed together to offer the assurance that others before had similar experiences, advancing or sometimes seemingly hindering the cause.
As the journey became harder and more captivating, the hand of divine direction appeared in success, and even in failure. A desire for self-esteem, and materialism, for ego’s sake, diminished. The value of wisdom seemed to rank far more highly than a self-interested pursuit of gain.
The Bible seemed to be a text book for engagement in sometimes ‘dangerous’ high level politics. The Biblical stories of yesterday seem to merge into today’s true stories. The Bible is possibly the greatest reference book for a life based on a combination of activism and lobbying. The journey through the stories gave me a new appreciation of Christianity.
Some Christians offer an account of how God has helped in their lives but, few recount help in a rigorous journey engaged for humanity. May I suggest that this is where the Bible and Christianity really come to the fore.
There is no better experience than to fight for God and humanity.
Suggestions to pray, study scripture, worship and living a good life are often advanced.
These are objectively more difficult to convincingly explain, when compared with the highs and lows of a journey on a God ordained cause, on a course set by application of the golden rule.
The nature and commitment of the journey with God seems encapsulated by the intent of the marriage vow, taken from the Book of Common Prayer,
‘to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.’
The more the journey with God commands your time and interest, the less importance a quest chasing worldly values becomes, or even personal protection - the objectives of the usual ‘bucket list’ of priorities diminishes. The intrigue of the journey can become spectacular by comparison with any alternative priority, said to offer value.
So, after three decades engaged in lobbying, it seems the hand of God in a journey for Him and the nation that demands attention, not success in a more focused interest of the journeyman.
Many of the Biblical stories may come true in your life as Christianity is understood and experienced in this very vibrant and different way.
So religion and politics are really connected, this way.
I wonder if the following words should be placed on the spine of the Bible, ‘A Guide to an Extraordinary Life.’
This article was written without a strong theological background.
It offers a different perspective to some existing views of approaching the Bible.
Many observers or spectators facilitate the transfer of the Bible and its guidance to others.
Whilst translations of biblical texts may change over time, the essence of the stories remain.
Peter Brohier is a retired Australian Lawyer and winner of the Australian Hotels Association - Tasmania award for bringing a National Sea Highway to Tasmania. Peter and his team were also described in the Sydney Morning Herald some years ago as ‘the lobbyists that had beaten the nation’s best.
1st October 2020
Copyright P.N. Brohier 2020. All rights reserved
143 Kooyong Road, North Caulfield. Victoria, Australia 3161. Mob 0415 941 314
Opinion and written and authorised by Peter Brohier 143 Kooyong Road, Nth Caulfield. Vic 3161. Material that has been generated or originally supplied by P.N Brohier Copyright PN Brohier 2021-2 All rights reserved. Peter Brohier is not connected with any organization or persons in Tasmania, or elsewhere.
Last updated 27th February 2022
mob 0415941314
