Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. There are some very good recommendations in the report. Some of them cost a lot of money and some do not. The government and the parliament need to look at them. The Ardglen tunnel near Willow Tree, which becomes part of the New England electorate after the next election, is an issue: it is a bottleneck. However, it is probably not the worst of the bottlenecks on that line at the moment because it has loading facilities at one end. Some improvements need to be made in the Hunter because, as sure as night follows day, the development of the coal industry north of the Murrurundi Range and the Liverpool Range will require infrastructure into the future. I was talking to one of the coal industry people only the day before yesterday—they happen to be next door to us—on a range of issues and it came up again that the problem they have now is what they knew they were going to have four years ago. Obviously, they have to be in front of the game, and this report identifies some of the areas that need to be addressed.

For those who might not be familiar with that area, I mention the Ardglen Tunnel. In terms of inland rail—I refer now to the Ernst and Young report, although I am not sure what this document actually identifies—about 220 million tonnes of freight comes from various locations within the eastern part of Australia; of that, 110 million tonnes, or 50 per cent, comes from the Hunter north-west corridor, which is within 300 or 400 kilometres of Newcastle. Half of the total freight loading on our inland rail comes from that area.

With the development of the coal industry in the Gunnedah basin, coal production currently runs at about 15 million tonnes but will escalate very quickly to 25 to 40 million tonnes. Just to put that into perspective, about 4.5 million tonnes of coal is taken from Melbourne to Brisbane or Brisbane to Melbourne on the inland rail route, which is being discussed here with some gusto. Nine to 10 per cent of that total amount will come out of the Gunnedah-Boggabri basin area within the next decade, so obviously Newcastle becomes critical. Some people would suggest that much of it—even this report mentions it—could go out through Gladstone. Gladstone is going to have its own infrastructure problems. In addition, there is an assumption here that the coal industry will stay on a glide path for some time, although others might disagree with that assumption. However, the Ardglen Tunnel will become very important. Some $100 million to $300 million, which is a relatively low cost, could expedite the freight component out of the Boggabri-Gunnedah basin through to Newcastle, with the improved extra coal loader and a number of other things that have to occur there. I bring that to the notice of the parliament as being a very important piece of infrastructure into the future.

Inland rail options have been discussed in the Ernst and Young inquiry and the government has put out another $15 million to look at the western corridor et cetera. Obviously, being the member for New England, I can speak with some authority about the New England rail corridor. The corridor’s northern half is disused at the moment, but it is still there. Many people—particularly the Mayor of Glen Innes, Steve Toms, and the New England Local Government Group, headed up by Maria Woods—have raised that issue with me as the member. My view—and I am pleased to say the view of most New Englanders—is that the inland rail route should go where it does the most good for the nation. If that happens to be through the New England corridor, well and good. If it happens to be through Moree and somewhere else, well and good. However, I think the government needs to look at that issue and at the costs closely too.

I notice here that Everald Compton, whom I regard as a friend and a courageous Australian, has mentioned that something like $800 million is needed to get the rail upgraded from Melbourne to Toowoomba and another $2 billion is needed for Toowoomba to Brisbane. That indicates to me that there are some real problems there, and I know that there are some technical and topographical problems. One thing I would suggest to the committee and to the parliament—I notice that it is mentioned also in here—is that going from Warwick through Rathdowney across to the eastern coastline is a much cheaper option than going from Toowoomba to Brisbane. The New England Local Government Group, in conjunction with the Warwick group and particularly the Mayor of Glen Innes, Steve Toms, have identified that potential cost saving: that Rathdowney to Warwick alternative to the $2 billion option from Toowoomba to Brisbane. You could still establish a link for export bulk commodities from Warwick through to Toowoomba and then north to Gladstone.

All I suggest is that, if the government—including the potential new government—is serious about this, the infrastructure must be located where it will be the most cost-effective. We must look at all these options rather than at just the political ones that are out there now. A number of documents that identify various cost savings are floating around and need to be scrutinised very closely. I would encourage the member for Hinkler to pursue that issue.

In conclusion and on a fairly parochial basis—I am very up-front about the fact that I come from a railway town called Werris Creek; I do not want to be seen as attempting to pork-barrel my local community—I want to speak about a specific issue, particularly given the possible importance of Werris Creek to the inland rail network. If the Dubbo link through Werris Creek goes west out to Moree or north up through New England, Werris Creek will play a pivotal role in the majority of freight being transported south; that will probably be up to 40 million tonnes within the next 10 years. The member for Hinkler would be well aware of these issues.

The increase to 72 wagon trains—it is currently being trialled, and it is only a matter of time before we get to 72 or 80 wagons—heading for Newcastle will cause a major blockage at the southern railway crossing. It is occurring now with 40 wagon trains; it will get much worse with 72 wagon trains. In terms of infrastructure, the requirement to remove that obstacle should be part of the forward planning. You cannot have ambulances and those sorts of vehicles being held up for long periods because there are a lot of trains using that line. Almost all of them will be blocking that railway crossing unless some technological expertise can be used to solve the problem. I just mention that today. I think an overpass is required, but perhaps other options need to be looked at.

Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.

See this speech in context