Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of … · 2014-05-26 · Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of enhanced cruise ship access to Garden Island

Submitted 31 October 2011

Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of

Enhanced Cruise Ship Access to Garden Island (the Review)

Sydney Harbour 10 December, 2009 (Dawn Princess, Sun Princess, Pacific Jewel)

Carnival Australia is seeking agreement on the shared use of publicly-

owned infrastructure at Garden Island and the implementation of a

clearly defined management framework to manage access to Garden

Island and support the continued competitiveness of Australia’s

cruise industry and its national economic contribution.

Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of enhanced cruise ship access to Garden Island 2

Background

As the largest cruise ship company in Australia, Carnival Australia welcomes the opportunity to

contribute to the Review (Appendices A and B provide further information about Carnival Australia,

its related brands and the corresponding fleets).

Cruising is the fastest growing sector of the Australian tourism industry. It has undergone growth of

over 20 per cent each year for the past six years, with Sydney continuing to be the hub for

international cruise visits and for rapidly expanding locally based cruises to the South Pacific and

South East Asia (Appendix C provides a more detailed snapshot of industry growth).

On latest projections, annual Australian passenger numbers are expected to triple to reach one and

a half million by 2020. By this time it is estimated that the cruise industry will contribute

approximately $2 billion in Value Added terms or $5 billion in Gross Output terms annually to the

national economy compared to $1.8 billion or $3 billion respectively, which were previously

estimated (Appendix D provides a more detailed background on the contribution of the cruise

industry to the Sydney and NSW economy).

As the industry continues to expand, so too does the size of cruise ships. By 2015 and 2020

respectively, about 33 and 56 per cent of cruise ships visiting Sydney1 will have air draft2 restrictions

preventing them from sailing under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Currently, there is a single

permanent commercial berth east of the Harbour Bridge at the Overseas Passenger Terminal (OPT)

at Circular Quay. During peak season this single berth is placed under heavy demand. According to

the NSW Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering Committee Part B report, the OPT was expected to

reach full capacity by 2015-16 but current port bookings now suggest that full capacity will occur

during the peak season of 2012-13, or in as little as two years time.

The Royal Australian Navy (Navy) has permitted access to berthing facilities at Garden Island for the

Queen Mary 2 – which is too large to berth at OPT – on eight occasions since 2007 (four completed,

four planned)3. The Navy has advised Carnival Australia that it will not consider requests for access

for the Queen Mary 2 beyond 2013.

Australia’s attractiveness as a destination for major international cruise ships centres fundamentally

on the experience of berthing in what many regard is the most beautiful natural harbour in the

world. It is widely accepted that if infrastructure constraints prevent cruise ships from berthing in

Sydney Harbour, they are far less likely to visit Australia at all. The success of Carnival Australia’s

international brands in the Australian market depends upon being able to promote and market

Sydney Harbour as a destination. This is therefore an issue with national implications for Australia’s

tourism industry.

1 Report of the NSW Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering Committee Part B.

2 Air draft is the distance from the surface of the water to the highest point of a vessel.

3 First introduced in February 2007 and used by Carnival Australia for visits by Queen Mary 2 on 20 February 2007, 26 February 2009, 7-8

March 2010, 22-23 February 2011 and for four visits planned in February, March 2012 and 2013.


Key issues and considerations

The impact of acute infrastructure constraints in Sydney Harbour is already being felt.

Cruise ships visited Sydney Harbour 148 times and transported 256,000 passengers in 2010-11.

These figures will increase to 204 times with 349,000 passengers in 2011-12, an increase of 38 and

37 per cent respectively. This also represents a 27 per cent increase in port calls west of the Bridge

and a 58 per cent increase in port calls east of the Harbour Bridge4. This reflects the rapid growth of

the market generally, but also the growing number of port calls being made by vessels with air draft

restrictions that prevent them from berthing at the proposed new passenger terminal at White Bay.

In 2011-12, congestion in Sydney Harbour will see six ships having to anchor rather than berth,

requiring passengers to be tendered5 to shore (Appendix I details the issues related to this particular

arrangement). Sydney Harbour will be so congested in the summer of 2013, that Carnival Australia

will base Carnival Spirit in Melbourne for two turnarounds6 to alleviate pressure (Appendices E & F

provides further information on current and future cruise ship congestion in Sydney Harbour).

Other than OPT, Garden Island is the only suitable berthing facility east of the Harbour Bridge

able to accommodate vessels > 80,000 GT7

The 2011 Report of the NSW Passenger Cruise Terminal Steering Committee (PCTSC, which included

Navy representation) provides the most recent guidance around the identification of possible

berthing and mooring locations in Sydney Harbour. The PCTSC Report identifies OPT and Garden

Island as the only suitable berthing locations for ships larger than 80,000 GT east of the Bridge in

Sydney Harbour. Even accepting any upgrades to OPT pursued by the NSW Government further to

the PCTSC’s recommendations, which were welcomed by Carnival Australia, the PCTSC expects the

facility to reach capacity by 2015-16. In actual fact, congestion will arise in the peak season of 2013.

The nearest non-harbour port east of the Bridge, Port Botany, is not an acceptable berthing

alternative from both an infrastructure and a passenger amenity perspective.

The PCTSC report notes that, at present, “There are no viable berthing opportunities for a passenger

terminal to be located at Port Botany.” Port Botany is Australia’s second largest freight container

terminal which is currently undergoing a major expansion to handle year-on-year growth of around

7 per cent, including the expansion of existing container and bulk liquids handling facilities. While

acknowledging the technical possibility of building cruise passenger terminal infrastructure at Port

Botany, Carnival Australia is strongly of the view that the character of the site, as a working

industrial facility, is incompatible with reasonable passenger expectations of Sydney as a cruising

destination. Sydney’s attractiveness in this regard continues to rely fundamentally on the proximity

of existing cruise passenger ship berths to the icons of Sydney Harbour, the Sydney Opera House,

the Harbour Bridge and the CBD. Research conducted by Carnival Australia shows that docking in the

heart of Sydney is an essential part of passengers’ overall cruise experience. (Appendix G provides

further details on passengers’ feedback).

4 Sydney Ports Corporation, Actual cruise ship port bookings for 2010-11 fiscal year 2011.

5 Tendering is the transferring of passengers from ship to shore either by the ship lifeboats or small passenger ferries.

6 A turnaround is a port call where there is a full exchange of passengers and replenishment of ship’s stores.

7 GT stands for Gross Tonnage.


The current ad hoc arrangement by which the Navy considers requests from Carnival to

access Garden Island lacks transparency both around the criteria and the process by which

requests are considered and determined.

Carnival Australia understands that only after the cruise lines have exhausted all avenues to berth at

existing terminal facilities, should a request then be made to berth at Garden Island. In 2009,

however, Carnival Australia made a booking request in these circumstances for the Aurora, a P&O

UK ship on a round the world cruise, which was rejected. Carnival Australia was then advised that

the Navy would only consider requests for the Queen Mary 2. More recently, Carnival Australia also

received advice that the Navy will not consider bookings for the Queen Mary 2 beyond 2013. The

model that has applied to date does not provide the longer-term certainty required to book and

market cruise ship itineraries and delivers no scope to respond to scheduling conflicts or other

perceived impediments in regards to sharing Garden Island upon which determinations around

access may be made (Appendix H is the form that needs be submitted to the Navy and constitutes in

itself the current booking process for booking considerations at Garden Island). It is important to

note that Carnival Australia is currently planning itineraries for 2014, which illustrates the typical

industry lead-times of 18-24 months.

A permanent framework / arrangement for the shared use of Garden Island will deliver

greater certainty for the Navy, as well as industry.

Carnival Australia acknowledges that accommodating this access has implications for Navy but

considers these are manageable within an agreed framework and agreed parameters. Existing ad

hoc arrangements for cruise ship access to Garden Island, while welcome and clear evidence of the

technical feasibility of conducting full turnarounds there, do not provide either the industry or the

Navy with the degree of certainty required to adequately plan for cruise ship port calls (Appendix I

provides more details on current passenger processing requirements and related issues). A formal

framework would include the implementation of proper arrangements to jointly manage and

mitigate any impact on defence-related site uses. Carnival Australia understands that circumstances

of genuine unforseen operational need will arise from time to time, but considers that the long lead

times for cruise ship port calls8 otherwise provides sufficient scope for the Navy to plan within an

agreed sharing framework without degrading operational readiness.

Failure to resolve cruise ship infrastructure constraints east of the Harbour Bridge would

deny Australia, and Sydney in particular, the enormous economic contribution made by the

industry, estimated by an October 2011 Deloitte Access Economics report to be $350 million

for Sydney in 2010-11, rising to $1,124 million in 2019-20.

Carnival Australia recognises the significant ongoing economic contribution to the NSW economy

made by the Navy through its presence at Garden Island. It does not, however, accept the

suggestion that a zero sum economic outcome arises from providing enhanced access for cruise

ships, whereby the increased economic contribution of the cruise industry is offset by a substantially

diminished economic contribution by the Navy.

8 Cruise ship port calls are booked up to 24 months in advance, with specific voyages being marketed for sale to the public 18 months prior

to scheduled departure.


It is worth emphasising in this context that Carnival Australia acknowledges the primacy of defence

uses at the site. Carnival Australia is not seeking to displace the Navy, but rather share access to a

vital piece of publicly owned infrastructure for a few months each year under an agreed framework.

A shared berthing solution during the peak cruise season will enable NSW to capture the full

economic contribution from both the Navy and the rapidly growing cruise industry.

The requirement for shared access is seasonal (defined as the Australian summer - January to

March). During the cruise season, Carnival Australia envisages a requirement to share the

northern FBE 1-3 berth pocket for 9 days of the peak cruise season in 2013, fewer than 15

days in 2015 and an anticipated 60 days by 20209.

Vessels up to 350m length overall (LOA) would be required to berth at the selected location. FBE 1-3

has shown it is capable of receiving vessels of this size through previous visits of the Queen Mary 2.

Turnaround times vary however usual berthing times are between 0600-0700 hours for arrival and

1600-1800 hours for departure for the locally based homeport vessels. The time alongside can

extend for visiting international vessels. International visits also sometimes include overnight stays

as part of a world voyage10.

Shared access will not work in the longer term if there is no capacity to process passengers

on-site at Garden Island. Carnival Australia believes it can design a facility that minimises

impact on Defence operations and in fact provides additional building capacity for the Navy

outside the cruise peak season. Carnival Australia is also committed to working with the City

of Sydney and local residents to ensure any potential disruptions are limited.

Carnival Australia would consider a phased approach to implementing passenger processing

requirements at Garden Island. In the short term, an open space of approximately 1,000m2 at the

southern end of the wharf (across FBE 5) could be used to establish a temporary and seasonal facility

such as a two level marquee set-up to process passengers on site. Ideally, this temporary facility

would require an overhead gangway, operated by a mobile crane, leading to an elevated walkway

that would take passengers from FBE 3 to the facility and separate traffic and pedestrian flows at

wharf level.

In the longer term, a multi-level permanent facility of similar area to the temporary facility would be

desirable. Such a facility should be simple in design and link to the ships via the elevated walkway

and automated aerobridges to facilitate truck loading/unloading logistics at wharf level and

minimise disruptions to the site. Ideally, traffic flow could be limited to the gate at the southern end

of the wharf with vehicle pick-ups/drop-offs arranged on ground level under the facility (Appendix J

provides illustrations of the possible facility arrangement).

Carnival Australia believes that in order to maximise the use of such a facility, the Navy and cruise

lines should be in a position to share the facilities for their respective purposes. Consequently, any

equipment required for passenger processing would not be permanently set-up and would be

removed after each cruise season to allow for alternate usage by the Navy (Appendix K provides

9 As per Carnival projections as of September 2011, Appendix F

10 International calls are usually referred to as transit calls with a partial exchange of passengers and ship’s stores


more detailed information on passenger processing requirements and examples of temporary and

permanent facilities).

Carnival Australia presents here some potential options but ultimately remains flexible as to the

needs of all parties in terms of accommodating and balancing defence and community

considerations against industry requirements.

Shared civil-military use of maritime infrastructure is not just technically feasible, but has

already been shown to work elsewhere.

In addition to Garden Island, where cruise ships have already successfully berthed at an operating

naval facility, there are international examples where this practice also takes place. In Key West,

Florida in the United States of America, cruise ships share berthing infrastructure at the US Navy

facility located at the Truman Annex, at the westernmost point of Key West. Like Garden Island, the

Truman Annex is a secure military facility, with a substantial berth at the northern end of the facility

(Appendix L provides an aerial description of the site). The City of Key West has a lease with the US

Navy that enters into effect whenever a cruise ship is berthed at the pier. The lease covers the area

immediately adjacent to the mooring and the access road that leads from the pier, through the base,

to the access gate located to east. Under the terms of the lease, the United States Navy permits

cruise ships to berth at the site and passengers are disembarked onto transport that transits through

the facility, through the gate, and onto public land. All of the ships that are scheduled to berth at the

pier at the Truman Annex Mole are approved by the US Navy which has a clause permitting them to

‘bump’ a cruise ship should it need to utilise the berth. The lease requires the City of Key West to

pay 40 per cent of the berthing fees it charges to cruise companies to the Navy, which in turn applies

this to maintaining the material condition of the pier.

Carnival Australia is committed to working with the Australian Government and the Navy

towards the development of a framework for the shared use of Garden Island that minimises

impact on the Navy’s current and future requirements.

Carnival Australia acknowledges the primacy of Garden Island to the Navy’s timely delivery of naval

capability to the government. Any framework for enhanced access for cruise ships should therefore

be built around the principle of ‘doing more with less’; and the most efficient utilisation of available

space at Garden Island during the brief peak cruising period of January – March. Carnival Australia

acknowledges that berth capacity at Garden Island may be further constrained through the

introduction of the Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships and the Hobart class Air

Warfare Destroyers (AWD) from 2014-15. Carnival Australia notes, however, that the Government is

yet to make final decisions on a ppermanent basing for the LHDs and AWDs and that basing options

in relation to these, and other current naval platforms such as the ANZAC class frigates, will be

considered in the context of this Review and the broader Defence Force Posture Review announced

on 22 June 2011.

Independent research conducted on behalf of Carnival Australia shows that Sydney’s

residents welcome cruise ships and support cruise industry calls for an additional berth east

of the Harbour Bridge.


International Standards Organisation-accredited Research conducted on behalf of Carnival Australia

during September 2011 showed that 86 per cent of Sydney residents surveyed said that it is very or

quite important that cruise ships are on Sydney Harbour. When presented with the industry

argument that some larger holiday cruise ships cannot fit under the Harbour Bridge, just over two

thirds of Sydney residents surveyed (or 68 per cent) reported that it was very or quite important that

a new berth be made available on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge (for full research results

refer to Appendix M).

Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of enhanced Cruise Ship Access to Garden Island 8

Appendices


Appendix A About Carnival Corporation Carnival Corporation & plc is a global cruise company and one of the largest vacation companies in the world. Its portfolio of leading cruise brands includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Seabourn in North America; P&O Cruises and Cunard Line in the United Kingdom; AIDA in Germany; Costa Cruises in Southern Europe; Iberocruceros in Spain; and P&O Cruises in Australia.

These brands, which comprise the most recognised cruise brands in Australia, North America, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, offer a wide range of holiday and vacation products to a customer base that is broadly varied in terms of cultures, languages and leisure-time preferences. Combined, Carnival’s vacation companies attract 8.5 million guests annually.

Carnival’s success in providing quality cruise vacations has made Carnival the most profitable company in the leisure travel industry. Carnival’s stock is dually listed on both the New York Stock Exchange and on the London Stock Exchange under symbol CCL. Carnival is the only company in the world to be included in both the S&P 500 index in the United States and the FTSE 100 index in the United Kingdom.

Headquartered in Miami, Florida, U.S.A. and Southampton, England, Carnival operates a fleet of 101 ships, with another seven ships scheduled for delivery between now and February 2015. With approximately 200,000 guests and 70,000 shipboard employees, there are more than 270,000 people sailing on board the Carnival fleet at any given time.

About Carnival Australia Formed in 2004, Carnival Australia is a branch of Carnival plc, and is the backbone of the cruise industry in this region with the P&O Cruises brand sailing from Australia since December 1932 when the P&O mail ship, Strathaird, embarked on a five-day cruise to Brisbane and Norfolk Island. Carnival Australia operates the P&O Cruises, P&O Cruises UK, Cunard, Princess Cruises, Holland America Line, Carnival Cruise Lines and Seabourn brands in the local Australian market.

In the last couple of years, Carnival Australia has expanded its operations from one cruise ship sailing from Sydney to seven ships sailing year round from Sydney, Melbourne, Fremantle, and Auckland under the local brands of P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises. In the coming summer season, one Princess Cruises and three Holland America Line ships will join the seasonal fleet in Australia and in 2012, the Carnival Spirit will join the local home ported fleet. In recent years, cruising has been the standout success of the Australian tourism sector recording annual growth of nearly 20 per cent for each of the six years to 2010. According to statistics compiled by the International Cruise Council Australasia (ICCA), more than 466,000 Australians took a cruise holiday in 2010 compared with just 116,000 in 2002. Carnival Australia is headquartered in North Sydney with approximately 350 staff working in its shore-based operation.


Appendix B

The Carnival group fleet overview by brand, May 2011 Carnival Corporation & PLC

Fleet OverviewMay 2011

2

AIDA Cruises

CARA CLASS

AIDAcara CA

1996; GT: 38,557; LB: 1,180; MC: 1,339

L(m): 193.30; B(m): 27.60; Draft (m): 6

H(m): 40; R: Italy

SPHINX CLASS

AIDAdiva DI

2007: GT: 69,203; LB: 2.050; MC: 2,500

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 7.30

H(m): 48; R: Italy

AIDAsol

2011; GT: 71,304; LB: 2,192; MC: 2,580

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft(m): 7.30

H(m): 51; R: Italy

AIDAmar Newbuild

2012; GT: 71,304; LB: 2,192; MC: 2,580

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft(m): 7.30

H(m): 51; R: Italy

AIDAvita VI

2002: GT: 42,289; LB: 1,266; MC: 1,582

L(m): 202.85; B(m): 28.0; Draft (m): 6.20

H(m): 45.20; R: Italy

AIDAaura AU

2003: GT: 42,289; LB: 1,266; MC: 1,582

L(m): 202.85; B(m): 28.10; Draft (m): 6.20

H(m): 45.20; R: Italy

AIDAbella BE

2008; GT: 69,203; LB: 2.050; MC: 2,500

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 7.30

H(m): 48; R: Italy

AIDAluna LU

2009; GT: 69,203; LB: 2.050; MC: 2,500

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 7.30

H(m): 48; R: Italy

AIDA TBD Newbuild

2013; GT: 71,304; LB: 2,192; MC: 2,580

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft(m): 7.30

H(m): 51; R: Italy

AIDAblu BL

2010; GT: 71,304; LB: 2,192; MC: 2,580

L(m): 252.00; B(m): 32.20; Draft(m): 7.30

H(m): 51; R: Italy

Carnival Cruise LinesFANTASY CLASS

CARNIVAL FANTASY® FA

1990; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,056; MC: 2,675

L(m): 260.60; B(m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85

H (m): 54.25; R: Panama

CARNIVAL ECSTASY® EC

1991; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,056; MC: 2,,675

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85

H (m): 54.25; R: Panama

CARNIVAL SENSATION® SE

1993; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,675

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85

H (m): 54.25; R: The Bahamas

CARNIVAL FASCINATION® FS

1994; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,675

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85


CARNIVAL IMAGINATION® IM

1995; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,697

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85

H(m): 54.25; R: The Bahamas

CARNIVAL INSPIRATION® IS

1996; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,052

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85


CARNIVAL ELATION® EL

1998; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,697

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85

H(m): 54.25; R: Panama

CARNIVAL PARADISE® PA

1998; GT: 70,367; LB: 2,052; MC: 2,697

L (m): 260.60; B (m): 36; Draft (m): 7.85


CARNIVAL DESTINY

CARNIVAL DESTINY® DE

1996; GT: 101,353; LB: 2,642; MC: 3,400

L (m): 272.30; B (m) : 38; Draft (m): 8.30


TRIUMPH CLASS

CARNIVAL TRIUMPH® TI

1999; GT: 101,509; LB: 2,758; MC: 3,470

L (m): 272.30; B(m): 38; Draft (m): 8.30


CARNIVAL VICTORY® VI

2000; GT: 101,509; LB: 2,758; MC: 3,470

L (m): 272.30; B (m): 38; Draft (m): 8.30


SPIRIT CLASS

CARNIVAL SPIRIT® SP

2001; GT: 88,500; LB: 2,124; MC: 2,680

L(m): 292.50; B (m): 38.78; Draft (m): 8.02


CARNIVAL PRIDE® PR

2002; GT: 88,500; LB: 2,124; MC: 2,680

L(m): 292.50; B (m): 38.78; Draft (m): 8.02


CARNIVAL LEGEND® LE

2002 GT: 88,500; LB: 2,124; MC: 2,680

L(m): 292.50; B (m): 38.78; Draft (m): 8.02


CARNIVAL MIRACLE® MI

2004; GT: 88,500; LB: 2,124; MC: 2,680

L (m): 292.50; B (m): 38.78; Draft (m); 8.02

H(m):2.76; R: Panama

CONQUEST CLASS

CARNIVAL CONQUEST® CQ

2002; GT: 110,000; LB: 2,974; MC: 3,756

L (m): 290.02; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30


CARNIVAL GLORY® GL

2003; GT: 110,000; LB: 2,974; MC: 3,756

L (m): 290.02; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30

H (m): 64.03; R: Panama

CARNIVAL VALOR® VA

2004; GT: 110,000; LB: 2,974; MC: 3,756

L (m): 290.20; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30


CARNIVAL LIBERTY® LI

2005; GT: 110,000; LB: 2,978; MC: 3,740

L (m): 290.20; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30


CARNIVAL FREEDOM® FD

2007; GT: 110,000; LB: 2,974; MC: 3,734

L (m): 290.20; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30


CARNIVAL SPLENDOR

CARNIVAL SPLENDOR® SL

2008; GT: 113,300; LB: 3,006; MC: 3,734

L (m): 289.75; B (m) 38; Draft (m) 8.30


DREAM CLASS

CARNIVAL DREAMSM DR

2009; GT: 130,000; LB: 3,646; MC: 4,724

L (m): 306.00; B (m): 37.20; Draft (m) 8.40

H (m): 64.00; R: Panama

CARNIVAL MAGICSM MC

2011; GT: 130,000; LB: 3,690; MC: 4,724

L (m): 306.00; B (m): 37.20; Draft (m) 8.40


CARNIVAL BREEZESM Newbuild BR

2012; GT: 130,000; LB: 3,690; MC: 4,724

L (m): 306.00; B (m): 37.20; Draft (m) 8.40


3

Costa Cruises

COSTA MARINA MA

1990; GT: 25,558; LB: 753; MC: 1,000

L(m): 174.2; B(m): 25.8; Draft (m): 8.2

H(m): 38.30; R: Italy

COSTA ALLEGRA AL

1992; GT: 28,597; LB: 784; MC: 1,000

L(m): 187.25; B(m): 25.8; Draft(m): 8.2

H(m): 38.40; R: Italy

COSTA VICTORIA VI

1996; GT: 75,166; LB: 1,928; MC: 2,394

L(m): 252.90; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 8

H(m): 51.40; R: Italy

SPIRIT CLASS

COSTA ATLANTICA AT

2000; GT: 85,619; LB: 2,114; MC: 2,680

L(m): 292.50; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 8

H(m): 54.50; R: Italy

COSTA MEDITERRANEA MD

2003; GT: 85,619; LB: 2,144; MC: 2,680

L(m): 292.50; B(m): 32.20; Draft (m): 8

H(m): 54.50; R: Italy

DESTINY CLASS

COSTA FORTUNA FO

2003; GT: 102,587; LB: 2,702; MC: 3,470

L(m): 272.20; B(m): 35.50; Draft (m): 8.20

H(m): 62; R: Italy

COSTA MAGICA MG

2004; GT: 102,857; LB: 2,702; MC: 3,470

L(m):272.19; B(m): 35.50; Draft (m): 8.20

H(m): 62; R: Italy

CLASSICA CLASS

COSTA CLASSICA CL

1991; GT: 52,926; LB: 1,302; MC: 1,680

L(m): 220.60; B(m): 30.80, Draft(m): 7.60

H(m): 48; R: Italy

COSTA ROMANTICA RO

1993; GT: 53,049; LB: 1,344 MC: 1,697

L(m): 220.60; B(m): 30.80; Draft(m): 7.60

H(m): 48; R: Italy

VISTA CLASS

COSTA LUMINOSA LU

2009; GT:92,720; LB: 2,260; MC: 2,826

L(m): 294.00; B(m): 32.30; Draft(m): 8.12

H(m): 55; R: Italy

COSTA DELIZIOSA DE

2010; GT: 92,720; LB: 2,260; MC: 2,826

L(m): 294,00; B(m): 32.25; Draft (m): 8.10

H(m): 57; R: Italy

CONQUEST CLASS

COSTA CONCORDIA CO

2006; GT: 114,147; LB: 2,979; MC: 3,780

L(m): 290.20; B(m): 35.50; Draft (m): 8.30

H(m): 61.20; R: Italy

COSTA SERENA SE

2007; GT: 114,147; LB: 2,979; MC: 3,780

L(m): 290.20; B(m): 35.50; Draft (m): 8.30

H(m): 62; R: Italy

COSTA PACIFICA PA

2009; GT: 114,288; LB: 2,987; MC: 3,780

L(m): 290.00; B (m): 35.50; Draft (m):8.30

H(m): 62; R: Italy

COSTA FAVOLOSA Newbuild

2011; GT: 114,500; LB: 3,008; MC: 3,780

L(m): 290.00; B(m): 35.50; Draft m):8.30

H(m); 62; R: Italy

COSTA FASCINOSA Newbuild

2012; GT: 114,500; LB: 3,008; MC: 3,780

L(m): 290.00; B(m): 35.50; Draft (m): 8.30

H(m); 62; R: Italy

4

QUEEN MARY 2 QM2003; GT: 148,528; LB: 2,592; MC: 3,108

L(m): 345.0; B(m): 41.0; Draft (m): 10.3

H(m): 62.0; R: UK

QUEEN VICTORIA QV2007; GT: 90,049; LB: 1,980; MC: 2,208

L(m): 294.0; B(m): 32.3; Draft (m): 8.0

H(m): 55.1; R: UK

QUEEN ELIZABETH QE2010; GT: 90,901; LB: 2,068; MC: 2,175

L(m): 294.0; B(m):32.3; Draft (m): 8.0

H(m): 55.2; R: UK

Cunard Line

5

Holland America Line

SIGNATURE CLASS

MS NIEUW AMSTERDAM NA

2010; GT: 86,700; LB: 2,106; MC: 2,500

L(m): 285.4; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8

H(m): 53.2; R: The Netherlands

MS EURODAM ED

2008; GT 86,273; LB: 2,104; MC: 2,500

L(m): 285.4; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8


PRINSENDAM

MS PRINSENDAM PD

1988/2002;GT: 37,845; LB: 793; MC: 835

L(m): 204; B(m): 28.9; Draft(m): 7.3


VISTA CLASS

MS NOORDAM NO

2006; GT: 82,318; LB: 1,916; MC: 2,269

L(m): 285.4; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8

H(m): 50; R: The Netherlands

MS WESTERDAM WE

2004; GT: 81,769; LB: 1,916; MC: 2,269

L(m): 285.4; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8


MS OOSTERDAM OS

2003; GT: 81,769; LB: 1,916; MC: 2,269

L(m): 285.2; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8


MS ZUIDERDAM ZU

2002; GT: 81,769; LB: 1,916; MC: 2,269

L(m): 285.4; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8


R-CLASS

MS ZAANDAM ZA

2000; GT: 60,906; LB: 1,432; MC: 1,627

L(m): 238; B(m): 32.2; Draft(m): 8.1


MS AMSTERDAM AM

2000; GT: 60,874; LB: 1,380; MC: 1,527

L(m): 238; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8.1


MS VOLENDAM VO

1999; GT: 60,906; LB: 1,432; MC: 1,627

L(m): 238; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8.1


MS ROTTERDAM RT

1997; GT: 60,874; LB: 1,404; MC: 1,563

L(m): 238; B(m): 32.3; Draft(m): 8.1


S-CLASS

MS VEENDAM VE

1996; GT: 55,451; LB: 1,350; MC: 1,465

L(m): 219.4; B(m): 30.8; Draft(m): 7.7


MS RYNDAAM RY

1994; GT: 55,451; LB: 1,260; MC: 1,465

L(m): 219.4; B(m): 30.8; Draft(m): 7.7


MS MAASDAM MA

1994; GT: 55,451; LB: 1,258; MC: 1,465

L(m): 219.4; B(m): 30.8; Draft(m): 7.7


MS STATENDAM ST

1993; GT: 55,451; LB: 1,260; MC: 1,465

L(m): 219.4; B(m): 30.8; Draft(m): 7.7


6

GRAND HOLIDAY GHO

1985 (2010); GT: 46,052; LB: 1,429; MC: 1,888

L(m): 221.37; B(m): 28 ; Draft (m): 7.77

H(m): 55.68; R: Portugal

GRAND MISTRAL GMI

1999; GT: 48,200; LB: 1,244; MC: 1,752

L(m): 214.48; B(m): 28.8; Draft (m): 7.016


GRAND CELEBRATION GCE

1987; GT: 47,262; LB: 1,494; MC: 1,910

L(m): 223.37; B(m): 28.0; Draft (m): 7.63


GRAND VOYAGER GVO

2000; GT: 24,391; LB: 832; MC: 920

L(m): 180.4; B(m): 25.5; Draft (m): 7.25

H(m): 37; R: Portugal

Iberocruceros

HOLIDAY CLASS

7

PACIFIC DAWN PDYr: 1991; GT: 70,285; LB: 1,596; MC: 2,032

L(m): 245.1; B(m): 32.2; Draft(m): 8

H(m): 46.7 (mast down) to 52.4 (mast up)

R: UK

PACIFIC SUN PNYr: 1986; GT: 47,626; LB: 1,480; MC: 1,973

L(m): 233.38; B(m): 27; Draft(m): 7.8

H (m): 48.7; R: Malta

PACIFIC JEWEL PJYr: 1991; GT: 70,310; LB: 1,668; MC: 1,913

L(m): 245.1; B(m): 32.2; Draft (m): 8

H(m): 46.7 (mast down) to 52.4 (mast up)

R: UK

PACIFIC PEARL PPYr: 1989; GT: 63,524; LB: 1,516; MC: 1,817

L (m): 247; B (m): 32.2; Draft (m): TBD

H (m): 49.0; R: UK

P&O Cruises Australia

REGAL CLASS SKY CLASS

FAIR CLASS

8

9

P&O Cruises UK

ORIANA OR

1995; GT: 69,153; LB: 1,828; MC: 2,014

L (m): 260.7; B(m): 32.2; Draft (m): 8.3

H (m): 55.0; R: UK

OCEANA OC

2000; GT: 77,499; LB: 2,016; MC: 2,016

L (m): 261.2; B(m); 32.0; Draft (m): 8.1

H (m): 48.6; R: Bermuda

VENTURA VE

2008; GT:116,017 ; LB: 3,078; MC: 3,571

L (m):289.9; B (m) :36.0; Draft (m):8.05


AURORA AU

2000; GT:76,152; LB: 1,870; MC: 2,050

L (m): 271.6; B(m): 32.0; Draft (m):8.4


ARCADIA AC

2005; GT: 83,781; LB: 2,016; MC: 2,120

L (m): 285.1; B(m): 32.3; Draft (m): 8.0

H (m): 55.3 ; R: Bermuda

AZURA AZ

2010; GT: 115,055; LB: 3,100; MC:3,610

L (m):289.9 ; B (m) :36.0 ; Draft (m): 8.05

H (m): 67.75; R: UK

ADONIA AD

1999; GT: 30,277; LB: 710; MC: 777

L (m):180.45 ; B (m) : 25.46 ; Draft (m): 5.97


SUN CLASS GRAND CLASS

SPIRIT CLASS

Princess Cruises

SUN CLASS

SUN PRINCESS SP

1995; GT: 77,441; LB: 2,022; MC: 2,272

L (m): 261.31; B(m): 32.3; Draft (m): 8.1

H (m): 49.40; R:Bermuda

DAWN PRINCESS DP

1997; GT: 77,441; LB: 1,998; MC: 2,272

L (m): 261.31; B (m): 32.3; Draft (m): 8.1


SEA PRINCESS CP

1998; GT: 77,441; LB: 2,016; MC: 2,270

L (m): 261.31; B (m): 32.25; Draft (m): 8.1


EXPLORER CLASS

PACIFIC PRINCESS PA

1999; GT: 30,277; LB: 668; MC: 777

L (m):180.45; B (m) : 25.46; Draft (m): 5.97


OCEAN PRINCESS TA

1999; GT: 30,277; LB: 668; MC: 777

L (m):180.45; B (m) : 25.46; Draft (m): 5.97


CORAL CLASS

CORAL PRINCESS CO

2002; GT: 91,627; LB: 1,974; MC: 2,368

L (m): 294.0; B (m) : 32.2; Draft (m): 8.3


ISLAND PRINCESS IP

2003; GT: 91,627; LB: 1,974; MC: 2,368

L (m): 294.0; B (m): 32.3; Draft (m): 8.3

H(m): 54.00; R: Bermuda

GRAND CLASS

GRAND PRINCESS AP

1998; GT: 108,806; LB: 2,592; MC: 3,100

L(m): 289.5; B(m): 36.05; Draft (m): 8.50


GOLDEN PRINCESS NP

2001; GT: 108,865; LB: 2,598; MC: 3,100

L(m): 289.5; B(m): 36.00; Draft (m): 8.45


STAR PRINCESS TS

2002; GT: 108,977; LB: 2,598; MC: 3,100

L(m): 289.5; B(m): 36.00; Draft (m): 8.45


DIAMOND PRINCESS DI

2004; GT: 115,875; LB: 2,678; MC: 3,168

L(m): 288.3; B(m): 37.5; Draft (m): 8.6


SAPPHIRE PRINCESS SA

2004: GT: 115,875; LB: 2,678; MC: 3,168

L(m): 288.3; B(m): 37.5; Draft (m): 8.6


CARIBBEAN PRINCESS CB

2004; GT: 112,894; LB: 3,100; MC: 3,599

L(m): 290.0; B(m): 36.00; Draft(m): 8.45


CROWN PRINCESS KP

2006; GT: 113,561; LB: 3,080; MC: 3,599

L(m): 288.7; B(m): 36.00; Draft(m): 8.50


EMERALD PRINCESS EP

2007; GT: 113,561; LB: 3,080; MC: 3,573

L(m): 288.7; B(m): 36.0; Draft(m): 8.50


RUBY PRINCESS RU

2008; GT: 113,561; LB: 3,082; MC: 3,575

L(m): 288.6; B(m): 36.00; Draft(m): 8.50


CLASS TBD

ROYAL PRINCESS Newbuild

2013; GT: 139,000; LB: 3,560; MC: 4,250

L(m): 330.0; B(m): 38.4; Draft (m): 8.5

H(m): TBD; R: Bermuda

TBD Newbuild

2014; GT: 139,000; LB: 3,560; MC: 4,250

L(m): 330.0; B(m): 38.4; Draft (m): 8.5

H(m): TBD; R: Bermuda

10

SEABOURN PRIDE PRI

1988; GT: 9975; LB: 208; MC: 218

L(m): 133.4 ; B(m): 20.5; Draft (m): 5.5

H(m): 30.3; R: Bahamas

SEABOURN ODYSSEY ODY

2009; GT: 32,000; LB: 450; MC: 462

L(m): 198.0; B(m): 28.0; Draft (m): 6.5


SEABOURN SPIRIT SPI

1989; GT: 9975; LB: 208; MC: 218

L(m): 133.4 ; B(m): 20.5 ; Draft(m): 5.5


SEABOURN SOJOURN SOJ

2010; GT: 32,000; LB: 450; MC: 462

L(m): 198.0; B(m): 28.0; Draft (m): 6.5


SEABOURN LEGEND LEG

1992; GT: 9961; LB: 208; MC: 218

L(m): 135.0 ; B(m): 20.5 ; Draft (m): 5.4


SEABOURN QUEST Newbuild QUE

2011; GT: 32,000; LB: 450; MC: 462

L(m): 198.0; B(m): 28.0; Draft (m): 6.5


Seabourn

PRIDE CLASS ODYSSEY CLASS

11

Table Legend

12

Acronym Definition

GT Gross Tonnage

LB Lower Berths

MC Maximum Capacity

L (m) Length (in meters)

B (m) Breadth (in meters)

Draft (m) Height from keel to waterline

H (m) Height from waterline

R Flag registration location


Appendix C

About the Australian cruise industry The Australian cruise market has grown by an average of 20 per cent per annum over the last six

years to approximately half a million passengers in 2010.

This stunning growth is mainly the result of supply meeting demand, with an increasing number of

ships home ported in Australia to satisfy the increasing local appetite for cruising. At the same time,

Australian ports have seen an increase in the number of international ship visits, with many home

porting in Australia seasonally.

Table 1 - Ship introductions in the Australian market

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Sun

Princess

Rhapsody

of the Seas

Dawn

Princess,

Volendam

Pacific

Jewel

Pacific

Pearl,

Diamond

Princess,

Sapphire

Princess

Sea

Princess,

Celebrity

Century,

Radiance of

the Seas

Carnival

Spirit,

Celebrity

Solstice,

Voyager of

the Seas,

Oosterdam

Source: Sydney Port Corporation, Ship bookings as of August 2011

The Australian cruise industry growth is very similar to what other more mature markets such as

North America have experienced and where market penetration is estimated at 3.1% in 2010, far

more than Australia with a 2.1% penetration rate. Consequently, there is no question that significant

growth is still to come with the expectation that passenger numbers will double over the next couple

of years.

Figure 1 - Australian cruise market, thousands of passengers


Appendix D The economic contribution of the cruise sector to Sydney and NSW, October 2011 Deloitte Access Economics

The Economic Contribution of the cruise sector to Sydney and NSW Carnival Australia

25 October 2011

Economic Contribution of the cruise sector

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. © 2011 Deloitte Access Economics Pty Ltd

Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

2 Economic Contribution .................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Economic contribution of the cruise sector to Sydney ....................................................... 2

2.2 Future growth projections – discussion ............................................................................. 5

Limitation of our work ................................................................................................................. 7

Tables Table 2.1 : Economic contribution of the cruise sector, Sydney, 2010-11 (AUD 2011 $M) .......... 2

Table 2.2 : Total expenditure in Sydney: 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M) ........................... 3

Table 2.3 : Total value added in Sydney: 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M) ........................... 4

Table 2.4 : Economic contribution, cruise sector corporate activity, 2010-11(AUD 2011 $M) ..... 5

Table 2.5 : Corporate activities 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M) ......................................... 5

Table 2.6 : Total contribution 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M) ........................................... 5

Table 2.7 : Year on Year growth projections: comparison (%) .................................................... 6

Figures Figure 2.1 : Passenger and Crew days in Sydney, 2010-11 to 2019-20 ....................................... 3

Figure 2.2 : Value added in Sydney, 2010-11 to 2019-20 ........................................................... 4

Glossary CDU Cruise Down Under

DAE Deloitte Access Economics

FTE Full time equivalent

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GSP Gross State Product

NSW New South Wales


2 Deloitte Access Economics Commercial-in-confidence

1 Introduction Deloitte Access Economics has been commissioned by Carnival Australia to report on the economic contribution of the cruise industry to Sydney.

In the last couple of years the Australian cruise industry has experienced strong rates of growth. This report details the economic contribution made by the cruise tourism sector to Sydney’s economy in 2010-11 and provides a forecast of its contribution out to 2020.

Carnival Australia regularly commissions independent economic analysis to help inform public policy decision-making around tourism and infrastructure that has implications for the cruise industry.

The economic contribution uses information provided from Carnival Australia and makes use of the recently published Economic Impact Assessment of the Cruise Shipping Industry in Australia 2010-11 released by Cruise Down Under (CDU).

2 Economic Contribution

2.1 Economic contribution of the cruise sector to Sydney

Total turnover attributable to the cruise sector in Sydney over 2010-11 was $400 million (see Table 2.1 below). Total turnover includes expenditure by passengers, crew and operators at the port.

Table 2.1: Economic contribution of the cruise sector, Sydney, 2010-11 (AUD 2011 $M)

Passenger Crew Operator Total

Expenditure ($M) 170.7 24.2 205.0 399.9

Total economic contribution

Value Added ($M) 148.3 21.1 180.7 350.1 Labour Income ($M) 84.6 12.4 98.4 195.4 Employment (FTE) 1,534.4 259.4 1,356.4 3,150.3

Direct contribution

Value Added ($M) 77.8 11.0 90.2 179.0 Labour Income ($M) 47.6 7.1 50.8 105.5 Employment (FTE) 946.4 171.8 667.8 1,786.0

Indirect contribution

Value Added ($M) 70.4 10.1 90.5 171.1 Labour Income ($M) 37.0 5.3 47.6 89.9 Employment (FTE) 588.0 87.6 688.6 1,364.3

Source: CDU, Deloitte Access Economics calculations



During 2010-11 expenditure in the cruise industry contributed $350 million to the Sydney economy, just over $195 million was paid to employees, with the port activity contributing about 3,150 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers.

Projected activity, to 2020

As more capacity enters the Australian cruise sector total passenger expenditure in Sydney are forecast to increase by 36% in 2011-12 followed by almost 50% growth in 2012-13, and 13% in 2013-14. From 2015 to 2020 growth in the sector is projected to stabilise to about 5 to 7%. This strong growth in expenditure has been supported by significant increases in passenger and crew visitors to Sydney, see Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Passenger and Crew days in Sydney, 2010-11 to 2019-20

Source: CDU, Deloitte Access Economics calculations

Total expenditure is forecast to reach more than $1 billion by 2015-16, and almost $1.3 billion by 2020. This is based on a forecast increase in economic activity in the sector outlined above, see Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Total expenditure in Sydney: 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M)

2010-11 2015-16 2019-20

Passenger 170.7 444.1 550.2

Crew 24.2 61.2 73.0

Operator 205.0 533.4 660.7

Total 399.9 1,038.8 1,283.9 Source: CDU, Deloitte Access Economics calculations

Value added is also projected to increase over the period as a result of the strong growth in expenditure. Total value added increased from $350 million in 2010-11 to more than

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2010-11 2013-14 2016-17 2019-20

Transit - crew Base - crew

Transit - passenger Base - passenger

Millions of passenger days



$1.1 billion at 2019-20. Employment is also projected to increase from 3,150 in 2010-11 to just over 10,100 in 2019-20.

Table 2.3: Total value added in Sydney: 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M)

2010-11 2015-16 2019-20

Value added

Passenger 148.3 385.8 478.0

Crew 21.1 53.3 63.6

Operator 180.7 470.2 582.5

Total 350.1 909.4 1,124.0

FTE

Total 3,150.3 8,178.0 10,100.2 Source: CDU, Deloitte Access Economics calculations

Figure 2.2 outlines the growth path of activity for the cruise sector in Sydney. The growth in the sector is expected to be front-loaded over the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 where new capacity enters the market.

Figure 2.2: Value added in Sydney, 2010-11 to 2019-20

Source: Deloitte Access Economics

Corporate activity

In addition to the port-related cruise contribution the sector also makes a contribution through its corporate activity. The corporate activity is based on the value added that is generated through head-office type operations in NSW. For example it includes advertising and other administration costs. Value added is estimated to be $93.5 million in 2010-11 with an employment contribution of 749 FTEs, see Table 2.4

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2010-11 2013-14 2016-17 2019-20

$m (2010-11)

Operator

Crew

Pasenger



Table 2.4: Economic contribution, cruise sector corporate activity, 2010-11(AUD 2011 $M)

Contribution

Value Added 93.5 Employment (FTE) 749.2 Source: Deloitte Access Economics estimates based on Carnival corporate data

Table 2.5 outlines the corporate contribution the cruise sector makes to the NSW economy over the projection period. The contribution grows from $93.5 million in 2010-11 to $174.1 million in 2019-20.

Table 2.5: Corporate activities 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M)

2010-11 2015-16 2019-20

Value added 93.5 156.2 174.1

Employment (FTE) 749.2 1,251.0 1,394.4 Source: Deloitte Access Economics calculations

Table 2.6 outlines the total economic contribution of the Sydney cruise sector to the NSW economy. The sector today is estimated to contribute almost $444 million, this is projected to grow to more than $1,065 million by 2015-16 and $1,298 million by 2019-20.

Table 2.6: Total contribution 2010-11 to 2019-20 (AUD 2011 $M)

2010-11 2015-16 2019-20

Port-related activity 350.1 909.4 1,124.0

Corporate 93.5 156.2 174.1

Total 443.6 1,065.6 1,298.1 Source: Deloitte Access Economics calculations

2.2 Future growth projections – discussion

The report above has shown that a significant increase in expenditure and value added is projected to take place over the next decade. Based on a significant increase in capacity of home-based ships, strong growth in the sector is projected, in particular in the medium term (2012-2013). In the medium term, forecast growth is based on actual Sydney port bookings from all cruise lines. This includes a significant increase in passenger volumes on P&O Cruises and Royal Caribbean home-based ships. Also included in the projections, is the new addition of the Carnival Spirit from October 2012.

This follows on from generally strong growth in the recent past. To estimate the future economic contribution of the sector we have used Carnival growth projections of both passenger and crew. To estimate the future corporate activity we have assumed that it grows at half the rate of passenger growth.

Expenditure in the cruise sector is expected to average annual growth of almost 15% out to 2020, in the next two years average annual growth of 43% is projected. These growth figures are significantly higher than both NSW Gross State Product (GSP) and Australian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next ten years, see table below.



Table 2.7: Year on Year growth projections: comparison (%)

2011-12 2015-16 2019-20 Average

Cruise Industry: Expenditure 36.2 6.4 4.9 14.8

New South Wales: Real GSP 1.5 2.6 2.6 2.5

Australia: Real GDP 3.4 2.3 2.6 3.1 Source: Deloitte Access Economics calculations

The CDU (2011) report notes significant potential for growth in the cruise industry over the coming years, with both port visits and the number of ships based out of Australia projected to increase. One of Europe’s largest cruise brands Costa Cruises, owned by Carnival, will visit Australia for the first time in 2012, bringing the cruise ship Costa Deliziosa with a passenger capacity of 2,824.

In addition Royal Caribbean Cruises’ Rhapsody of the Seas will be based out of Sydney from October of this year, followed by their Voyager of the Seas for 5 months of the 2012-13 season. Rhapsody of the Seas has capacity for 3,840 passengers making it the largest cruise ship ever to base itself in Australia.

International Cruise Council Australasia statistics, that measure world cruise activity, show the number of Australians taking a cruise holiday reached a record high during 2010. The data indicates the number of Australians taking a cruise has increased by 100,000 from the previous year, a growth of 27%. Growth in passenger numbers in Australia was the second highest for the international cruise sector, only New Zealand experienced higher growth (36%) however this was from a much smaller base.

Contact us

Deloitte Access Economics ACN: 49 633 116 Level 1 9 Sydney Avenue Barton ACT 2600 PO Box 6334 Kingston ACT 2604 Australia Tel: +61 2 6175 2000 Fax: +61 2 6175 2001 www.deloitte.com/au/economics

Deloitte Access Economics is Australia’s pre-eminent economics advisory practice and a member of Deloitte's global economics group. The Directors and staff of Access Economics joined Deloitte in early 2011.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/au/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.

About Deloitte

Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and deep local expertise to help clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloitte's approximately 170,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of excellence.

About Deloitte Australia

In Australia, the member firm is the Australian partnership of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. As one of Australia’s leading professional services firms. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its affiliates provide audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through approximately 5,400 people across the country. Focused on the creation of value and growth, and known as an employer of choice for innovative human resources programs, we are dedicated to helping our clients and our people excel. For more information, please visit our web site at www.deloitte.com.au.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

© 2011 Deloitte Access Economics Pty Ltd

http://www.deloitte.com/au/economics

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/home/0%2C1044%2Csid%25253D5518%2C00.html


Appendix E

Current port bookings not serviceable as a result of congestion in Sydney Harbour

SYDNEY PORTS CORPORATION

September 2011 - November 2020

Updated 26 Sept 2011

Vessel Arrival at Berth Departure from Berth

Berth

Name Berth Agent Cruise Line

Pacific Sun 26-Jan-2012 08:30 (Thu) 26-Jan-2012 18:00 (Thu) Athol Buoy Athol 4 CVL P&O Cruises Australia

Celebrity Century 07-Feb-2012 09:30 (Tue) 08-Feb-2012 18:30 (Wed) Athol Buoy Athol 4 ICS Celebrity Cruises

Amadea 11-Feb-2012 06:00 (Sat) 11-Feb-2012 18:00 (Sat) Athol Buoy Athol 4 ISS V Ships

Costa Deliziosa 19-Feb-2012 13:00 (Sun) 19-Feb-2012 22:00 (Sun) Athol Buoy Athol 4 CVL Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Regatta 20-Feb-2012 08:00 (Mon) 20-Feb-2012 19:30 (Mon) Athol Buoy Athol 4 BWL Regent Seven Seas Cruises

The World 04-Mar-2012 06:00 (Sun) 04-Mar-2012 19:00 (Sun) Athol Buoy Athol 4 BWL Residenses

Celebrity Millennium 21-Nov-2012 12:00 (Wed) 21-Nov-2012 18:30 (Wed) Athol Buoy Athol 4 SSS Celebrity Cruises

Costa Romantica 15-Dec-2012 19:00 (Sat) 16-Dec-2012 20:00 (Sun) Athol Buoy Athol 4 CVL Costa Crociere S.p.A.

Radiance of the Seas 21-Feb-2013 06:00 (Thu) 21-Feb-2013 16:00 (Thur) Athol Buoy Athol 4 ICS Royal Caribbean

Balmoral 25-Feb-2013 11:00 (Mon) 25-Feb-2013 18:00 (Mon) Athol Buoy Athol 4 ISS Fred Olsen Cruise Lines

Balmoral 26-Feb-2013 18:30 (Tue) 27-Feb-2013 16:00 (Wed) Athol Buoy Athol 4 ISS Fred Olsen Cruise Lines

Costa Deliziosa 28-Feb-2013 13:00 (Thur) 01-Mar-2013 21:30 (Fri) Athol Buoy Athol 4 CVL Costa Crociere S.P.A


Appendix F

Sydney Harbour congestion issues east of the Harbour Bridge The table below illustrates the congestion issues that will occur in the coming years assuming that the OPT is the only berth East of the harbour bridge. The vessel call days at risk of not being serviced are the number of vessel days at port which cannot be accommodated at OPT because it is 100% occupied. Projections to fiscal year 2013 are based on current ship bookings. Further projections are based on expected growth in passenger numbers, port calls, ship sizes and historical seasonal patterns. Figure 1 – Projected congestion in Sydney Harbour

Source: Sydney Ports Corporation, ship bookings & Carnival Australia projections as of September 2011

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Vessel call days at risk of not being serviced east of the Bridge

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar


Appendix G

Sydney Harbour research report, Summary, November 2009 Carnival Australia Purpose and Methodology of the research

The research was conducted by Carnival Australia to determine whether cruising through Sydney

Harbour and docking in the heart of Sydney was an essential part of a passenger’s overall cruise

experience.

The research was done as an internet survey of 1,700 past P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises

passengers, where the majority of the sample was composed of a majority of people living in Sydney

and its surrounding areas. 500 of those passengers responded to the survey.

Summary of findings:

Overall:

Cruising through Sydney Harbour is a stand-out with 96% of respondents rating the experience as a

memorable moment, with the most cited reason for this being the beauty of the harbour and the

city.

Cruising and docking in Sydney Harbour was also considered an essential part to the appeal of the

cruise for 67% of respondents.


Detailed findings:

To the question, “What was so memorable about cruising through the harbour?” People replied as illustrated below to the prompted answers.

Figure 1 – Detailed results to the question cited above

53%

22%

18%

17%

16%

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

6%

6%

5%

3%

2%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Its a beautiful city \ harbour

Sailing under the Harbour Bridge \ I didnt think wed fit!

Views of the city \ landmarks \ scenery

My home town \ feeling of coming home \ proud of my city

Seeing the Opera House

Seeing the Harbour Bridge

The sunrise \ early morning light

Sailing through the Heads

Seeing the city from a different perspective

The atmosphere on board \ excitement

Seeing the life on the Harbour \ the craft \ other liners

The lights of the city

The sunset

Being so high up on the ship

Seeing the Bridge climbers \ waving \ Captain blew the horn at them

Other


Appendix H

Garden Island booking form

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE (After first entry)


PROCEDURE FOR CRUISE SHIP REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO FLEET BASE EAST / GARDEN ISLAND

The primary function of the Fleet Base East/Garden Island (FBE/GI) complex is to provide support and maintenance berths for Navy warships home-ported in Sydney and occasional visiting warships. Defence planning continues to reflect the long term tenure of FBE/GI, which is located to provide fundamental support to Australian Defence Force maritime capability operating in and from the east of Australia. Berth availability at FBE/GI is already limited and will be further constrained when new, large amphibious ships and air warfare destroyers enter service from 2014. Navy’s ability to respond positively to cruise ship requests for use of spare berths will remain subject to Fleet maintenance and operational readiness priorities. This is difficult to predict with the degree of notice and guarantee of access that cruise ship operators seek. Where a cruise ship request for access has been licensed and confirmed, Navy will undertake to fulfil this agreement. All agreements are formed on a commercial basis in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, to cover the costs to Defence. The procedure for requests for access to FBE/GI is as follows: 1). The cruise ship operator must submit a request in writing (via letter or fax), including the

form overleaf, to the Navy point of contact:

Director-General Navy Capability, Plans & Engagement (DGNCPE) R1-4-B157 Russell Offices Department of Defence Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: (02) 6265 5145 Fax: (02) 6265 2036

A minimum of 180 days notice is required in order to complete full consultation, obtain approval from the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) and prepare necessary licences.

2). The Master Attendant (MA) will be consulted in the first instance regarding the ability to

accommodate the access request concurrent with Fleet maintenance and operational readiness priorities.

3). The cruise ship operator will be advised in writing (via letter or email) by DGNCPE as to

the outcome of the access request. 4). If approved, the request will subsequently be managed by the Regional Manager

Defence Support - Sydney Central in Defence Support Group (DSG). DSG will liaise with DoFD in accordance with Lands Acquisition Act 1989 requirements.

5). The cruise ship operator, DGNCPE and MA will be advised in writing (via letter or email)

by DSG as to whether the request can be licensed and confirmed. 6). If confirmed, the cruise ship operator will liaise with the Sydney Port Services Manager

(PSM) regarding requirements and arrangements. The PSM will advise DSG of these arrangements, and cruise ship access will occur under the oversight of the PSM, who retains authority to intervene in all port operations as necessary.



FORM FOR CRUISE SHIP REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO FLEET BASE EAST / GARDEN ISLAND

Cruise ships seeking access to FBE/GI require approval in accordance with Section 119 of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, under the authority of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Defence will advise whether access requests can be accommodated concurrent with Fleet maintenance and operational readiness priorities. If an access request is licensed and confirmed, a Short Term Hire Agreement (STHA) will be issued to the cruise ship operator for access to naval berthage and accompanying use of Defence land. Approval cannot be provided retrospectively. All agreements are formed on a commercial basis in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, to cover the costs to Defence. This form must be submitted via letter or email to the Navy point of contact (details overleaf). A minimum of 180 days notice is required for all requests.

Cruise ship operator point of contact: (address, email and phone)

Ship name and dimensions: (length, beam and draught)

Proposed arrival: (time and date)

Proposed departure: (time and date)

Anticipated activities: (e.g. berthing; embarkation and/or disembarkation of passengers via gangways; passenger processing and ship administration; erection of temporary marquees, barriers, security devices and/or other temporary facilities for passengers or staff; use of wharfside land for storing of supplies or equipment, and/or parking of vehicles; etc.)

Comments and/or special concerns: (e.g. relating to security, quarantine, animal control, health control, mobility-impaired access, handling of hazardous substances, etc.)

By submitting this form, you certify that you have read, understood and agree with these conditions and the procedures detailed overleaf. All decisions are final and will be advised in writing (via letter or email).


Appendix I

Current Garden Island passenger processing arrangements and related issues

During its last visits in Sydney, the Queen Mary 2 berthed at Garden Island but tendered and

processed embarking / disembarking passengers at a temporary facility at Glebe Island, Balmain to

minimise disruptions in the Garden Island precinct. This arrangement is currently sub-optimal for the

following reasons:

1. The boarding of passengers and their baggage using tenders is inadequate. Tenders are unstable

by nature and present safety risks for passengers and in particular for the elderly.


Tenders are also a major bottleneck in the passenger boarding process not only as tender numbers

and capacity are limited but also as manual baggage handling slows processing down as well. This

results in significant waiting times for passengers both on the tenders and in the temporary facility.

In addition, tenders are a costly alternative for passenger boarding both in terms of fuel and

resources as many tender movements are required to operate a full passenger exchange.


2. The temporary facility rates poorly in the passenger experience. Maintaining cool temperatures

within the marquee in the summer season is technically difficult and the inability to offer first

class amenities is a major hurdle in our attempt to entertain passengers throughout the check-in

process and to provide for a pleasant start to their journey with us.


Other issues experienced with a marquee set up are:

- Minimal covered areas for coach pick-up and drop-off transfers

- No wet weather facilities outside during rainy periods

- Uneven surfaces in both wharf-side and passenger areas resulting in trip hazards and pools

of water on wet days

- Damp flooring and odour during wetter months with no provision to dry flooring before

turnaround day

- Unsettling atmosphere in the marquee when it is subject to high winds

- Roof leaks and air conditioning condensation drips threatening the integrity of check-in

equipment

3. Glebe Island is not an attractive site and contributes to further traffic congestion on Victoria

Road. Indeed, the site itself offers views of industrial estates and does not reflect the beauty of

the Sydney Harbour that our passengers expect.

Furthermore, the White Bay location generates additional vehicle traffic (to get to CBD train stations,

hotels, the airport, etc) and would only enhance the traffic congestion identified on Victoria Road,

particularly as embarking/disembarking times tend to coincide with traffic peak hours. This

additional transport mode is also an incremental cost to cruise companies as these are required to

provide transport to both passengers and crew looking to spend time in Sydney as part of a transit

stop.


Appendix J

Illustrations of a potential facility arrangement at Garden Island The following illustrations are an extract of a feasibility report produced for the Review to demonstrate what future potential ship and facility arrangements could be made if a clear management framework was to be implemented for the enhanced access of Garden Island by cruise ships. Illustration 1 - Garden Island view Here, the ship is along FBE 2-3. An elevated walkway (Black line below) goes along the ship and connects passengers to the facility located at FBE 5 (grey area below).


Illustration 2 – Terminal view (Ground floor)


Illustration 3 – Terminal (First and Second floor) and walkway view


Illustrations 4 & 5 – FBE 1-5 view


Appendix K Carnival Australia baseline terminal passenger processing requirements

Customs, AQIS and Immigration facilities Customs, AQIS and immigration currently utilise space within the baggage hall.

- For disembarkation the majority of space is required by AQIS who could have 10-12 staff processing passengers. Customs’ space requirements are less during disembarkation. Customs’ staff is positioned at the head of the primary line and require a desk for duty collection and an area to conduct searches in private if required.

- For embarkation AQIS are not present. Customs require an area to set up 6-7 stations for the

primary line.

- Immigration requires one station to oversee processing.

Security facilities The number of security machines used is dependent on the number of passengers, crew and visitors to be processed. A maximum of three Hand Carry X-Rays and three walk through metal detection arches are currently used. Again the number of large X-Ray machines used to screen unaccompanied luggage is dependent on the number of bags to be screened. Usually a maximum of two machines are currently used. This area does not necessarily need to be attached to the main terminal building.

Overhead type gangway This allows pedestrian flow to be separated from traffic flow at wharf level. Operations could be conducted without in the short term, however the logistics would need to be assessed for each vessel as each vessel has its own configuration. In the short term, an overhead gangway being connected and disconnected by mobile crane could be considered. In the longer term, an automated aerobridge should be considered.

Covered set down and pick up points An area allowing 2 minute drop-off and pick-up of passengers to allow continuous movement.

Taxi rank and queuing area An area allowing loading of 4-5 taxis at the same time. Area also required to queue taxis waiting to pick up. Ideally, an area capable of storing between 10-20 taxis would be preferred.

Car Parking No public car park is proposed on site. However, parking would be required for essential staff and Government Authorities such as Customs, AQIS, and Immigration as well as any ship service contractors that are required to attend the vessel. An estimate of 20-25 parking spaces would be sufficient.


Coach parking An area capable of loading or unloading 3-4 coaches simultaneously. A holding area is also required for waiting coaches however this could be in an alternate location nearby and not necessarily on site.

Passenger and Staff Amenities The site will also require general amenities capable of handling the number of persons on site. The number of staff on site is dependent on a number of factors, mainly the number of passengers exchanging and quantity of stores to be loaded.

Secure providoring area and truck(s) waiting area An area is required where trucks can be unloaded and goods checked. The size of delivery vehicles varies between small pantec vehicles to B-Double semi trailers. Maximum size restrictions could be considered for delivery vehicles. Ideally being able to unload 2-3 trucks simultaneously is preferred however not essential.


Examples of potential shared facilities for Garden Island:

Temporary facility - Two level marquee set-up


Permanent facility (example 1)






Appendix L Key West Harbour and description of the agreement for shared access to the US Navy harbour infrastructure

US Navy Base

Passenger transit to town centre


Appendix M Sydney Harbour Quantitative Research Report, September 2011

GA Research

Carnival Australia

Sydney Harbour Quantitative Research Report

Sydney Level 2, 137 Pyrmont St, Pyrmont NSW Australia 2009 Phone: +61 2 9552 8996

Canberra Ground Floor, 25 National Circuit, Forrest ACT Australia 2063 Phone: +61 2 6295 3522

Melbourne Level 6, 2 Russell St, Melbourne VIC Australia 3000 Phone: +61 3 9659 3050

September 2011

www.garesearch.com.au

2

Objectives & Methodology

Objectives

The main objective of this quantitative research study was to:

• Obtain an up to date assessment of Sydneysiders’ perceptions of the relative importance of cruise ships in

Sydney Harbour and Garden Island

• Test the public’s response to key messages Carnival may want to use around the issue of the Navy sharing

Garden Island.

Methodology

A seven minute CATI telephone survey was conducted amongst a representative sample of n=400 Sydneysiders.

Respondents were randomly sampled from all over Sydney. The margin of error for this sample size is +/-4.9% at

95% confidence. Age and gender quotas were used, as well as a weighting variable, to ensure the

representativeness of the sample according to ABS Census 2006 proportions.

The questionnaire included tracking four questions that were run in October 2010, as well as some new questions

testing a series of messages. Statistically different results from last year are reported as such.

The survey was conducted by AFS, an ISO20252 accredited field room from Tuesday 20 September to Wednesday

28 September, 2011 with a response rate of 41%.

Note:

This project was conducted in compliance with AS ISO 20252:2007 requirements. In preparing this report we have presented and interpreted information that we

believe to be relevant for completing the agreed task in a professional manner. It is important to understand that while we have sought to ensure the accuracy of all the

information incorporated into this report, information has been gathered through a sample-based survey. Where we have made assumptions as a part of interpreting the

data incorporated in this report, we have sought to make those assumptions clear. Similarly, we have sought to make clear where we are expressing our professional

opinion rather than reporting findings. Please ensure that you take these assumptions into account when using our report as the basis for your decision-making. We are

more than happy to discuss the analysis and recommendations with you. In some instances totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

3

Executive Summary

• The proportion of respondents that say it is very or quite important that holiday cruise ships are on Sydney Harbour has

remained steady (86% compared to 89%). However, they have slipped to third in the list of vessels that were tested.

• When presented with the cruise ship industry’s argument that some larger holiday cruise ships cannot fit under the Harbour

Bridge, just over two thirds of respondents (68%) reported thinking that it was important that a new berth be made available on

the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge.

• The proportion of respondents who report it is very important has increased significantly to 37% (from 30%).

• Around eight out of ten respondents (80%) report that the main benefit from holiday cruise ships in Sydney Harbour is to

Sydney’s economy from tourists spending money. This is consistent with last year’s result.

• Respondents were presented with a series of messages supporting the shared use of Garden Island.

• The most effective message tested was the one that tapped into the concern that Sydney might miss out on the new larger

cruise ships, as 54% of respondents said it made them more likely to support the cruise ship industry point of view.

• The other messages were far less effective.

• Respondents were also presented with a series of messages supporting the Navy’s point of view.

• The potential to compromise the security of a Naval Base was the most effective message, with 72% of respondents saying

it made them more likely to support the Navy point of view.

• The potential to disrupt Navy’s ability to defend Australia’s national interest was also an effective message, with 67% of

respondents reporting that it made them more likely to support the Navy point of view.

• After the messages were presented, respondents were once again asked which side of the argument they supported.

Interestingly, even though in isolation, the individual messages supporting the Navy’s point of view were rated as the most

effective, the process of hearing all of the messages reduced overall support for the Navy’s position (50% support, down from

59%).

• This results seems to indicate that there is a default position to support the Navy, but when exposed to opposing

arguments, some people become open to the possibility of debate, although the Navy still has majority support.

Key Findings

5

Importance of Vessels on Sydney Harbour

Ferries

Holiday cruise ships

Tourist and restaurant boats

Naval vessels

Recreational boats

Container ships and tankers

84%

50%

48%

41%

36%

22%

15%

39%

39%

35%

41%

33%

1%

9%

12%

20%

20%

31%

1%

2%

1%

5%

3%

14%

October 2010

Very important Quite important Not that important Not at all important

Qu1. As you know, Sydney Harbour is an active harbour with a wide range of vessels using it for commercial, public transport, recreational, naval and

tourism purposes. As a Sydneysider, how important would you say it is that the following types of vessels are on Sydney Harbour? Would you say they are

very important, quite important, not that important or not at all important? (Oct 2010, n=400; Sep 2011, n=400)

• The proportion of respondents that say it is very or quite important that holiday cruise ships are on Sydney

Harbour has remained steady (86% compared to 89%). However, they have slipped to third in the list of vessels

that were tested.

• Ferries remain the vessel type that are rated as most important (100% compared to 98%)

• The perceived importance of tourist and restaurant boats has increased slightly (from 87% to 91%) and are

now rated the second most important type of vessel on the harbour

Ferries

Tourist and restaurant boats

Holiday cruise ships

Recreational boats

Naval vessels

Container ships and tankers

87%

51%

47%

38%

44%

27%

13%

40%

39%

41%

32%

33%

8%

13%

19%

19%

24%

2%

1%

2%

5%

16%

September 2011

Very important Quite important Not that important Not at all important

6

Importance of New Eastern Berth

Qu2. Because some larger holiday cruise ships, such as the Queen Mary 2, cannot fit under the Harbour Bridge, in order to keep cruise ships coming to

Sydney Harbour, the cruise ship industry says it needs another deep water berth on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge. How important do you think it is

that there is a new berth made available on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge? (Oct 2010, n=400; Sep 2011, n=400)

Oct 2010 Sep 2011

30%

37%

35%

31%

26% 23%

7% 8%

2% 2%

Unsure

Not at all important

Not that important

Quite important

Very important

• When presented with the cruise ship industry’s argument that some larger

holiday cruise ships cannot fit under the Harbour Bridge, just over two thirds of

respondents (68%) reported thinking that it was important that a new berth be

made available on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge.

• The proportion of respondents who report it is very important has increased

significantly to 37% (from 30%).

7

Perceived Benefits of Cruise Ships in Sydney Harbour

Qu3. Although you may not be familiar with the subject, if you had to guess, what do you think benefits the most from holiday cruise ships in Sydney

Harbour…? (Oct 2010, n=400; Sep 2011, n=400) [Multiple response]

Sydney's economy from tourists spending money

Australia's reputation overseas

The atmosphere of Sydney Harbour generally

The cruise ship industry Unsure

83%

50%

26%

18%

0.3%

80%

42%

25%22%

1%

Oct 2010 Sep 2011

• Around eight out of ten respondents (80%) report that the main benefit from holiday cruise ships in Sydney Harbour is to

Sydney’s economy from tourists spending money. This is consistent with last year’s result.

• The next most common response was that it would benefit Australia’s reputation overseas (42%), which is

significantly lower than last year.

• This is followed by the benefit to the atmosphere of Sydney Harbour generally (25% no change from last year, 26%).

• Over one in five (22%) reported that that the cruise industry itself benefits the most (compared to 18% last year).

8

Garden Island Argument

Qu4. The cruise ship industry argues that Garden Island (which is the naval base on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge near Woolloomooloo) is the only

place where those larger holiday cruise ships can berth in the harbour. The Navy argues that for security reasons, they do not wish to share Garden Island

with another party on a permanent basis. Would you like to see..? (Oct 2010, n=400; Sep 2011, n=400)

Larger holiday cruise ships sharing Garden Island with the Navy on a

permanent basis, despite the Navy view

The Navy's security argument take priority Or are you not sure one way or the other

16%

60%

24%

17%

59%

24%

Oct 2010

Sep 2011

• When presented with the cruise ship industry argument that Garden Island is the only place where

larger holiday cruise ships can berth on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge and the Navy argument

that they do not wish to share Garden Island with another party on a permanent basis for security

reasons, most respondents (59%) report that the Navy’s security argument should take priority.

• Around 17% of respondents report that they would like to see larger holiday cruise ships sharing

Garden Island with the Navy on a permanent basis, despite the Navy view and almost a quarter

(24%) report that they are not sure one way or the other.

• These results are consistent with the findings from last year’s survey.

9

Message Testing – Industry Messages

Qu5. Now, I am going to tell you several things that people have said about Garden Island. For each of the following statements, please tell me if it makes

you more likely to support the cruise ship industry point of view, more likely to support the Navy’s point of view or if you think it makes no difference to the

argument? (Sep 2011, n=400)

Garden Island is the only deepwater berth in Sydney Harbour that can accommodate

new larger cruise ships like the Queen Mary 2. If they cannot berth there, they

may no longer come to Sydney

Cruise ships already berth at Garden Island with the Navy’s permission on a

case-by-case basis

Sydney’s tourism and economy can no longer accommodate the Navy’s

monopoly use of vital infrastructure in Sydney Harbour

34%

15% 15%

20%

15% 13%

24%

34% 35%

7%

13% 14%

13%21% 19%

2% 2% 4%

Unsure

A lot more likely to support Navy point of view

A little more likely to support Navy point of view

Makes no difference

A little more likely to support cruise ship industry point of view

A lot more likely to support cruise ship industry point of view

• Respondents were presented with a series of messages supporting the shared use of Garden

Island.

• The most effective message tested was the one that tapped into the fear of missing out on

the new larger cruise ships, as 54% of respondents said it made them more likely to support

the cruise ship industry point of view.

• The other messages were far less effective.

10

Message Testing – Navy Messages

• Respondents were also presented with a series of messages supporting the Navy’s point of view.

• The potential to compromise the security of a Naval Base was the most effective message, with

72% of respondents saying it made them more likely to support the Navy point of view. Almost half

(45%) say it made them a lot more likely to support the Navy point of view.

• The potential to disrupt Navy’s ability to defend Australia’s national interest was also an effective

message, with 67% of respondents reporting that it made them more likely to support the Navy

point of view.

• The historical aspect was comparatively less effective as a message.

Qu5. Now, I am going to tell you several things that people have said about Garden Island. For each of the following statements, please tell me if it makes

you more likely to support the cruise ship industry point of view, more likely to support the Navy’s point of view or if you think it makes no difference to the

argument? (Sep 2011, n=400)

Sharing Garden Island with commercial vessels might compromise the security

of a crucial Defence base

Sharing Garden Island with cruise ships disrupts Navy’s maintenance activities

and its ability to defend Australia’s national interests

The Navy has been at Garden Island for over 150 years and they shouldn’t have

to share

6% 6% 11%2% 7%8%

18%20%

42%27%26%

14%

45%41%

25%

2% 1% 1%

Unsure

A lot more likely to support Navy point of view

A little more likely to support Navy point of view

Makes no difference

A little more likely to support cruise ship industry point of view

A lot more likely to support cruise ship industry point of view

11

Garden Island Argument Retest

Qu4. The cruise ship industry argues that Garden Island (which is the naval base on the eastern side of the Harbour Bridge near Woolloomooloo) is the only

place where those larger holiday cruise ships can berth in the harbour. The Navy argues that for security reasons, they do not wish to share Garden Island

with another party on a permanent basis. Would you like to see..? (Sep 2011, n=400)

Qu6. Now that you have heard a bit more about it, would you like to see...? (Sep 2011, n=400)

Larger holiday cruise ships sharing Garden Island with the Navy on a permanent basis,

despite the Navy view

The Navy's security argument take priority Or are you not sure one way or the other

17%

59%

24%22%

50%

29%

Pre Mesages

Post Messages

• After the messages were presented, respondents were once again asked which side of the argument they

supported.

• Interestingly, even though in isolation the individual messages supporting the Navy’s point of view were rated as the

most effective, the process of hearing all of the messages actually reduced support for the Navy’s position.

• As a result of hearing all of the messages, there was a significant decrease in support for the Navy’s argument

(59% down to 50%).

• Support for the cruise ship industry’s point of view increased slightly (but not significantly) to 22% from 17%.

• The proportion of those who were unsure also increased slightly (but not significantly) to 29% from 24%.

• This results seems to indicate that there is a default position to support the Navy, but when exposed to opposing

arguments, some people become open to the possibility of debate, although the Navy still has majority support.

Melbourne: Jasmine Hoye

Level 6, 2 Russell Street

Melbourne VIC Australia 3000

Ph: +61 3 9659 3050

Email: [email protected]

Sydney: Sue Vercoe (CEO)

Level 2, 137 Pyrmont St

Pyrmont NSW Australia 2009

Ph: +61 2 9552 8996


Canberra: Feyi Akindoyeni

Ground Floor, 25 National Circuit

Forrest ACT Australia 2063

Ph: +61 2 6295 3522


A division of

www.garesearch.com.au

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of … · 2014-05-26 · Carnival Australia Submission to the Independent Review of enhanced cruise ship access to Garden Island