On the 10th of March the Phillip Island Conservation Society held a public meeting, Car Ferry—Fact or Fantasies.
The meeting was well attended by residents with standing room only and Chaired by Jeff Nottle, former Chairman of Preserve Western Port Action Group.
The speakers constituted a mix of proponents, as well as opponents to the proposed Cowes to Stony Point Car Ferry.
One of the speakers of the evening was the Chairman of Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board, Hon. John Pandazopoulos.
John Pandazopoulos was a former Labor Minister during the Brack’s Government and his portfolios included Minister for Major Projects, Minister of Employment and Minister for Tourism.
He was appointed to the Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board as Chairman by the current Andrews’ Government Tourism Minister, Hon. John Eren.
The Hon. John Pandazopoulos was the second speaker to address the audience. Those in attendance were wondering if he was even going to mention the car ferry. He finally began to present his view of the potential benefits the proposed car ferry would provide Phillip Island.
The two main points that John Pandazopoulos made at this stage were that Phillip Island would benefit from a car ferry by way of an increase in tourism over the winter months and improved access to services on the mainland for residents, workers and students.
As each of these points were being presented by John Pandazopoulos, the attendees became quite vocal in their disagreement, and understandably so.
In our article titled Phillip Island: You have a problem!, we made it evident how ridiculous it would be to expect residents, workers and students to utilise a car ferry at the cost of $120 round trip.
When questioned, John Pandazopoulos then surprisingly conceded that the car ferry may NOT be used very often by Phillip Island residents (or as he liked to call us The Locals). He felt it would be more focused on attracting international tourism, particularly through the winter months.
You may recall that in last week’s article we provided research we had collected by direct contact with two car ferry services, one of which is currently operating in Ireland. This was the same car ferry service that Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board and AECOM have used in the Draft Business Case to support their view of the car ferry as a potential benefit.
Missing in that article is the following graph:
We also included excerpts from the Norway ferry operator’s website which clearly made evident that during the winter the ferries operate virtually empty and some are even taken out of service during this time.
In recent days we also received an email from the Norway ferry service operator. They stated and we quote:
“The capacity of the ferries are adjusted after the season. During the Summer season there are more ferries than in the Winter due to increased Summer traffic.”
Quoted from email correspondence from Georg Enga, Regionsansvarlig (Norway Ferry Service Operator)
AECOM also referred to the Norway ferry services as supporting information for the car ferry here in Phillip Island.
It is crystal clear therefore, that the alleged benefits for residents, workers and students are questionable. Hon. John Pandazopoulos in the public forum even conceded to this.
Perhaps even more questionable and highly likely misleading, is the knowledge that Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board and AECOM argue that a car ferry will bring international tourists to the Island during the winter.
Three days before this public meeting, Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board placed a full page coloured advertisement in this newspaper.
It has been confirmed that this was a paid advertisement. No doubt many tax payers would question this expense.
In the following weeks’ edition, Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board placed a three quarter page coloured advertisement.
Money to burn?
One would naturally consider that this money would have been better spent on activities or promotions that would have provided more substantial financial benefits from tourism to businesses and organisations on Phillip Island.
Would most assume that this was the role of the tax payer funded Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board?
Rather, the money was spent on what were clearly lobbying messages. Obvious attempts to influence public opinion toward a car ferry in which they determine strong support for.
The second ad openly emphasised, “Take action to show your support”.
The Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board again promotes the questionable benefits a car ferry would bring to Phillip Island.
They also came up with a new angle – “The Car Ferry provides a unique sense of arrival at a special place…”. They forgot to mention that this inspiring experience will cost you $60 for a 25 minute ride.
Another benefit that was not mentioned by Hon John Pandazopoulos during his presentation but is stated in their full page ad, was the possibility of a car ferry being a viable alternative emergency route. He perhaps refused to mention it because of how ludicrous the idea is. It was not even mentioned in the second advertisement.
We mentioned in last week’s article that AECOM stated that “this perspective has been supported in a letter from the Emergency Management Commissioner”.
We contacted the Emergency Management Commissioner Mr Craig Lapsley to clarify what he or his department had based their support on.
The article was printed before we could receive any clarification; however we eventually received a letter from Mr Craig Lapsley.
Mr Craig Lapsley informed us that in fact their support was merely towards receiving a proposal regarding how a car ferry may be considered an alternative means of access for Emergency Services.
We now see that the Emergency Management Commissioner is NOT actually supporting the car ferry per se as AECOM has stated in the draft business case, but is awaiting a proposal on how the car ferry could possibly assist their department.
Attending this public meeting it was interesting to note that there were no speakers representing the Bass Coast Shire Council.
Cr Michael Whelan attended, but made it quite clear that he was not representing the Bass Coast Shire Council, but as a resident with his own views.
Most people would have thought that the Cr Pamela Rothfield, the Mayor, would have been the most appropriate person to address the public meeting. Not only as the Mayor representing the Council, but also as the Chairperson of the Car Ferry Business Case Steering Committee.
Cr Pamela Rothfield did attend however as soon as the meeting concluded, made a very hasty exit. Therefore no attendee was able to ask what the council’s, or the steering committees position was.
We should make note that in the Mayor’s defence, she made a statement in the last edition that “…this is the time that we need to listen.”
The Mayor went on to say, “…I will always keep the best interests of our beautiful and unique Island at heart in any decision I make.”
From our point of view, we believe the Mayor will keep the best interests of the Island at heart, but we are not too confident that Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board, Regional Development Victoria as well as AECOM share that commitment.
The strongest supporter of the car ferry at this meeting was John Pandazopoulos, representing Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board.
In their full page ad and on their website Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board states those three benefits; increased volume of winter tourists, enhanced connection for residents and an alternative route for emergency services.
In our article last week titled Phillip Island: You Have a Problem, we went into detail on how AECOM defined the problems that a car ferry would address. Not surprisingly, the problems aligned with the benefits being promoted by Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board and AECOM.
One very astute attendee at the public meeting suggested that perhaps the car ferry was being promoted as a solution to problems that in actuality, do not exist.
Our research and analysis suggests that this individual’s observation is absolutely on the money.
Another problem that AECOM outlined in the draft Business case document was that Phillip Island is a socially and economically disadvantaged community. This was not mentioned by John Pandazopoulos as a problem.
However, based on their assumed and estimated increase in tourist spending during the slower months due to the car ferry service to Cowes, Phillip Island would rise up out of this disadvantaged community status.
As residents of Phillip Island for many years, we have observed the difficulty retailers on the Island have in acquiring staff during the busy period, in particular food and beverage operators. We have observed backpackers, overseas students, working holiday visitors and students from the City working in the many cafes, restaurants and shops. This clearly is because of an obvious lack of local job seekers on the Island.
To suggest this scenario would improve during the winter season would be highly misleading.
Remaining on the topic of Phillip Island retailers, based on the rhetoric of the draft Business Case document, one would assume that the retailers would have come together as one voice in support of the car ferry.
In general, the vast majority of retailers of Phillip Island have remained silent; neither voicing their support, or otherwise.
We questioned one resident very familiar with the retail trade on the Island regarding this observation. This individual considered that local retailers, for the most part are ambivalent to the car ferry concept.
Before we wind up this article, we again refer to the draft Business Case document authored by AECOM and in particular, the Investment and Benefit Logic Mapping.
The Logic Mapping was summarised by using a Scoring method. If you go to Appendix A, page 6 of the draft Business Case document you will see the Scorecard.
KPI-1 Visitor spend and dispersal was given a score of 30% out of 100. To define what they mean by dispersal; this refers to the car ferry increasing visitors numbers and spending during the winter months. We can fully acknowledge that is farcical and very misleading.
KPI-3 Inter-regional commuting or in other words residents, students and workers using the car ferry was given a score of 10% out of 100. We now understand this to be farcical and very misleading.
KPI-5 Optimum vehicle throughput to and from Phillip Island was given a score of 20% out of 100. This refers to the alternative route in emergencies and traffic congestion as a result. Not much logic put into this benefit.
This means that 60% of the benefit scores are baseless and disturbingly quite misleading. Especially when Destination Phillip Island Regional Tourism Board and AECOM are using this data as support for the car ferry.
That leaves 40% which remain highly questionable and this includes the benefit of increased employment on Phillip Island and quicker travel times to and from Mornington Peninsula.
Next week we have a closer look at the players involved in the development of the draft Business Case document.