Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, I present the committee’s report entitled The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

For just over two years, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services conducted an inquiry into the integration of regional road and rail networks and their interface with ports. This inquiry is now finished and today I am tabling our final report: The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?

During the inquiry, the committee received a tremendous quantity of information from governments, local authorities, businesses, industry associations and individuals. That information was supplemented by numerous reports on various aspects of the freight transport task. It seemed at one stage that a new report was being released every few weeks.

Our inquiry received 194 submissions, held 30 public hearings and carried out a large number of inspections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who made submissions or gave evidence to the committee at the hearings, and those who gave their time and hospitality as we went on inspection tours.

This inquiry arose out of concerns about long queues of coal ships off our ports awaiting the availability of cargoes, a problem that is occurring even as I speak. It is a potent image of lost opportunity.

The committee found that infrastructure problems are widespread. It found a pattern of infrastructure difficulties in the access to and operation of our major ports. There were missing supply links, a lack of rail capacity, a need for bypass or ring roads, and bottlenecks that needed an overpass or a rail loop to overcome the traffic congestion.

Perhaps one example illustrates this. The Lascelles terminal in Melbourne moves over one million tonnes of dry bulk products a year. At present, it has no rail connections to service its wharf storage, handling and ship berthing facilities. A rail line would enable the terminal to rail its products directly to and from the main freight network.

In many of the ports, the functionality of the access channels is threatened by the trend towards using larger and larger freight carriers. The need for deeper channels is a growing problem, especially in Melbourne, Australia’s biggest container port. Other ports need wider channels or separate passing channels to overcome their difficulties.

In a recent paper, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics estimated that total containerised trade would increase from 5.2 million containers in 2004-05 to approximately 14.9 million in 2024-25, an increase of 5.4 per cent a year, a staggering figure. This illustrates the need for our ports to be able to handle the bigger vessels that are now becoming the norm for containerised trade. Equally, land based infrastructure and access routes must keep pace in order to service these larger vessels. For a country so dependent on maritime activity, to neglect this will be at Australia’s economic peril.

The committee also noted a decline in the use of Australia’s coastal shipping fleet, a trend that is disturbing in view of the rapidly growing freight task and the congestion of our road and rail systems. The Chair of the International Commission on Shipping said:

For the largest island continent in the world to be determining a land transport strategy to the exclusion of its own interstate shipping services, is irresponsible.

The importance of intermodal terminals was highlighted by evidence considered at the inquiry. The committee was surprised to find, however, that rather than an emphasis on regional terminals—as the members expected—there was a need for city terminals in the major capital city basins. The North-South Rail Corridor Study, commissioned by DOTARS, made the comment:

If key intermodal facilities are not operating efficiently, this would actually negate gains made by improving infrastructure along the corridor.

Cross-border and near-border infrastructure commitments—or the lack of them—are of great concern to the committee. The Commonwealth has focused on new cross-border modalities for water, and transport infrastructure must be treated in a similar fashion.

Finally, I would like to thank the secretariat staff. Secretaries Ian Dundas and, more recently, Janet Holmes played leadership roles, while Tas Luttrell and his team carried out a remarkable two-year commitment. Researchers Courtney Krauss and Samantha Mannette deserve our praise. I have much pleasure in tabling this report.

See this speech in context