The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/172326
All goods and passengers must come ashore by lighter been let on May 10 to Graig China Limited to find and negotiate with a shipyard in China for the new build of the Tokelau Ferry. This was 13 days before MFAT had the courtesy to notify the bidders that they had missed out. MFAT then advised that they had appointed the Danish design office of Knud e Hansen to design the new ferry. It gets worse, and one has to question just how serious the Government is about resolving the matter and building a ship for the people of Tokelau. Clearly, the contract is price sensitive given that this is the third time Government have called for tenders. We understand that the budget for this ferry is some $12 million including in-service costs. Deduct the raft of consulting fees to date and we are down to nearly $10 million, and then deduct the 100 percent bank guarantee, organised with the Government's export guarantee system through Kiwi Bank costing up to $1.3 million, and we are left with $9 million to build a 45 metre passenger ship to SOLAS (the added cost of a passenger ship this size to meet SOLAS requirements is probably around $2.5 million alone). When you consider MFAT have turned down previous bids because they were too costly, one would have thought that if they were being honest they might have lifted the budget to match the average of the previous submitters. Or were they being told porkies by the consultants who were working the system by suggesting otherwise? To continue to call for prices in an economy of rising costs without raising the budget is tantamount to operating a fraudulent process with intent. Yes, this is from a respected Government department. When we looked at the rationale for SOLAS, we were told it was because the Tokelau ferry was trading as a passenger ship between two countries and had to be safe. To suggest that a nonSOLAS class passenger ship under 500GRT would be any less safe is a blatant lie. The current vessel is non-SOLAS as are half of the successful vessels trading the Pacific. In checking with the Cook Island Registry where the ship will be registered, they are happy for the ship to be a non-SOLAS class passenger vessel as long as it meets all the prescribed safety standards for such a ship. Is it the Samoan Government? I think not. If they were the "fly in the ointment" one must ask who is giving such feral advice? Either way, I am sure it would be a simple matter for our New Zealand Aid team to resolve given that Samoa enjoys a significant New Zealand Aid package annually. In closing, a number of questions remain. • Why is it that our Government has not recognised the significant value of the more than $450 million that the New Zealand Ship and Workboat Group contributes annually to the economy? • Why has the Government been less than truthful by operating a process that is clearly designed to preclude New Zealand industry bids? 26 Professional Skipper September/October 2013 An earlier ferry dies • When we read of a $30 million subsidy from the Government to help Meridian resolve its negotiations with Rio Tinto to keep the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter running until 2017 on taxpayer subsidised power we must ask, why now the difference in standards? • Given that the operational, through-life and maintenance support would be funded by the taxpayer, why would the Government expect to guarantee its own project at a huge cost, adding expense to a New Zealand yard? • In 2007, a realistic budget to build might have been around $12 million, today that price would be around $18 million. Why is it that MFAT remains convinced that they can still build the vessel for less than NZ$12 million? • To have this vessel built in New Zealand might have cost more (without taking all the benefits to government and local communities into consideration), but the Government still owns the boat and has not lost the asset to international aid. Was this long term ownership and quality of "New Zealand made" given any consideration? Industry is not looking for a $30 million taxpayer handout, just a small hand up • At any point during the tendering and evaluation processes was consideration given to the benefits of spending New Zealand Aid money in our own economy? The Government is our servant, elected to spend our money in the best possible way for us. Is giving our money to overseas designers and shipyard a better solution than spending in our own country? Finally, was the value of awarding the design and build contract to a New Zealand company fully considered:• The support and growth of New Zealand shipbuilding capability would mean an increase of experience, allowing local yards to be in the position to win future orders – will a yet-to-be-named Asian shipyard need our Government support to increase their build experience more than we do? • Support New Zealand designers and the generation of intellectual property and design experience that will assist in securing further orders – does Knud e Hansen need our support to generate a larger design portfolio? • Why not spend some of our New Zealand Aid money as aid to New Zealand? Unlike the Government decision to throw $30 million into the ring to secure the Tiwai Point – Rio Tinto deal (a foreign company that has just posted a US$1.72 billion profit), our industry is not looking for a $30 million taxpayer handout, just a small hand up... www.skipper.co.nz