Jamie Jansen

Journalist

Last week came the announcement that a motion for the Daintree Ferry solution had passed.

Newsport previously spoke with Mayor Michael Kerr about this decision. This week the other Councillors explain their reasons behind the way they voted for the motion.

The motion has opened the way to replace the existing vessel for a more efficient ferry with an increased loading capacity.

Staff recommendations have shown a four lane vessel which can be loaded two lanes at a time and carry 90 per cent more cars per hour. 

Four Councillors voted yes to replace the existing ferry with a single ferry capable of increased loading capacity.

Councillor Roy Zammataro was the only one to vote no, mentioning costs to Council and ratepayers.

Councillor Abigail Noli said that in 2017 the Council and the community became acutely aware of queuing and waiting times in crossing the Daintree river.

“First, it was decided to buy the 16 year old ferry for $4.5 million and then to go into an operations tender with a non-local company.

"Owning a ferry with a limited life, Council has been investigating what the next step is going to be and it needs to be done quite hastily as we are at least two years tardy."

“Lost years combined with money frivolously spent, gives no other choice but to go with the slightly wider new ferry that has been presented to Councillors.

“A two ferry solution would have taken a certain amount of effort, time and more money to initially set up but amortised over a much longer period would have been the better value for money because of the long term resolution of the problem.

"It would have solved the problem for about 50 years instead of the proposed 25.

“The wider single ferry means, less hoops to jump through, less work to be done and a bit less money to be spent initially.

"Unfortunately because of the urgency of the situation and lost money, the real choice has been taken from the hands of the Councillors.”

Ratepayers costs

Councillor Roy Zammataro said he voted against the motion for multiple reasons.

“Already $4.5 million has been spent on the purchase of the existing ferry and now ratepayers are being asked to commit to spending another $6.5 million,” he told Newsport.

“The main reasons for complaints are queueing times and stand downs. When the Daintree River crossing public consultation was conducted it came back overwhelmingly in support of the two ferry option.

“Two ferries would eliminate the queueing and stand down issue because regardless of breakdowns, regulatory dry-docking or maintenance repairs there would always be one ferry in operation.

“At the end of the day there will be $11 million of ratepayers money spent and the queueing and downtime issues will still be present because there will only be one ferry.

“Another question that needs to be addressed is if a vessel of this size would be able to be dry docked at this site or would it have to be transported to a shipyard in Cairns. If so this would cause lengthy downtime.”

Transparency to the community

Lisa Scomazzon said that it was obvious to her that the two ferry solution may not be possible after reading the report that was given to Councillors regarding the different options for the ferry.

“In my opinion the existing ferry will need to be replaced at some stage so it is time to get this right once and for all. If it is done correctly it will benefit locals and visitors relating to waiting times.

“I also foreshadowed an amendment to the motion to include a part two, which was voted in favour to ensure that quarterly reports from the CEO to Councillors on all matters associated with the project including financials.

“This was to ensure that Councillors were up to date on the progress and costs and the community would also be well informed of the progress of the project. In my opinion this show’s transparency for the community.”

Councillor Peter McKeown was also contacted to provide comments but Newsport did not get a response.