Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak on the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2014 and I would like to address the amendments moved by the member for Grayndler, especially paragraph 2, where he states:

(2) investment in rail freight boosts productivity, reduces road congestion and has environmental benefits

I would like to take this opportunity to completely debunk some of those statements, to show that they are a great misnomer, and, not only that, but to show how dangerous they actually are. The first thing we need to understand is that rail freight in almost every area through the country uses diesel locomotives and not electric motors that we have in our suburban rail trains. It is correct that steel on steel is more efficient than rubber on road. It is more fuel efficient. If you look at some of the statistics that were involved in the environmental impact statements for the Moorebank Intermodal project, they said that it is actually 50 per cent more efficient. So if you are moving a similar quantity of freight—similar volume, similar weight—via rail instead of road, you are using half the diesel fuel. So there are reductions in fuel by moving freight from road to rail and you will get a reduction in carbon dioxide—that clear, odourless gas that makes the plants grow. But what you do not get a reduction in is what is known as particulate emissions. This is the real carbon pollution that we should be concerned about.

Particulate emissions depend on how you actually burn that diesel fuel. To give you some examples, the engines that have been developed over recent years substantially reduce the amount of particulate emissions. I have some figures from the Parliamentary Library. They note that compared with pre-1996 truck engines, engines built in 2007-8, the equivalent of Euro 4, have technology improvements that have seen particulate emissions decline 18-fold. So a modern truck engine built in 2007-08 emits 18 times less than a truck engine of 1996. And that is regulated. But when we look at those rail locomotives that are shuttling freight backwards and forwards through the urban areas of our cities, there are no regulations at all on those. The information from the Parliamentary Library notes that the particulate emissions of a diesel locomotive burning a litre of diesel fuel produces 20 times more particulate emissions than a modern truck engine circa 2006-07. There is 20 times more particulate emissions from those locomotives that are trucking through the cities. So even though you are using half the amount of diesel fuel, you are increasing the particulate emissions by 10 times.

Why are particulate emissions important? We have just seen the World Health Organisation put out a report that says that particulate emissions are carcinogenic. They say that particulate emissions cause cancer, bronchitis, asthma and a whole host of respiratory diseases. The people who are most susceptible to particulate emissions are young children.

This is a particular concern in the electorate that I represent in south-west Sydney. Over the last three years we have seen very large increases in particulate emissions readings in Liverpool. Perhaps the reason for those increases is simply because people are burning more wood to keep themselves warm in winter. As electricity prices go up and up and up because of the carbon tax and the renewable energy scheme—and all these other wonderful green schemes that push up our electricity prices!—people look to find other ways to keep their homes warm. One way they keep their homes warm is that they go out into the bushland and grab some wood and bring it home and burn it to keep themselves warm. Because that has been happening we have had a very substantial increase in particulate emissions in Western Sydney.

There are two measures for particulate matter. There is PM10 and the smaller particulate matter PM2.5, which refers to the size in microns. The World Health Organization has a standard for PM10 in which the annual average particulate matter that any citizen should be exposed to should not exceed 20 microns per cubic metre. In Liverpool last year exceeded that. We were at 21.1 microns per cubic metre. So the citizens of Liverpool in Western Sydney were breathing air that is above the recommended standard for the World Health Organisation for PM10. It is the same for PM2.5, which the World Health Organisation tells us is even more dangerous and a greater health risk than PM10. In fact, the standard that we have for that in Australia is that we should not exceed eight micrograms per cubic metre.

Last year in Liverpool we were above that. We were at 9.5 micrograms per cubic metre. So both those levels of particulate matter were either above the recommended standard for the World Health Organization or above the standards that we set here in Australia.

The member is putting forward an amendment in which he says moving a lot of the freight off the road and onto the rail will improve the environment, but every truck that is taken off the road and the freight put on these diesel trains will increase the particulate matter. It will not double it or triple it but will make it 10 times worse. This is the effect that the amendment of the member will have. If we are going to have these freight rail inter-urban links running through highly urbanised areas where the air pollution is already very high we need to bring in some type of standard to limit those particulate emissions. Otherwise, taking freight from roads and putting it on rails will make our pollution worse.

I thank the House for the time on this most important issue. We all have to breathe the air. None of us can escape that. People, regardless of where they live in Australia, deserve to be able to breathe clean air. We need to take steps to reduce the particulate emissions in Western Sydney, not to increase them. It is a great concern that the member for Grayndler would come in here and move a motion claiming the environmental benefits, when what he is planning is going to increase particulate emissions by 10 times, when those emissions have all those harmful health effects.

See this speech in context