Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes the importance of rail in meeting the nation’s transport task into the future; and

(2)

is of the view that:

(a)

as a nation we remain focused on transferring more freight off road and onto rail—particularly on Australia’s east coast corridor;

(b)

we continue to develop an efficient, integrated system, which reflects the necessity for inter-modal links; and

(c)

strong competition on the freight rail network is encouraged and that competition between different transport industries is maintained.

Effective use of transport infrastructure is essential if we are going to prosper as a nation. Australia could not effectively participate in the current world boom in resources if we could not get our product quickly and efficiently to market. Australia’s transport task faces the challenge of great distance. We must also ensure that each mode of transport is achieving world’s best practice and that intermodal links, which bring together the different forms of transport, operate effectively.

Rail must play a greater role in the nation’s transport future, and AusLink recognises this. With the national transport task doubling by 2020, the federal government is working to ensure that we meet the challenge. This represents a stark contrast to the neglect of some state governments, which have allowed rail assets under their control to fall into disrepair—the New South Wales state government is a prime example of this phenomenon.

The Australian government is investing heavily in rail. Through AusLink and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, $2.4 billion is being invested in rail to 2009. On the east-west rail corridor, rail has achieved a market share in the order of 80 per cent, with a single freight train running between Perth and Melbourne replacing 450 semitrailers. An example such as this clearly demonstrates the role which rail can play in reducing congestion on our roads, improving road safety outcomes and providing positive environmental outcomes.

Whilst rail has been competing successfully on the east-west corridor, its share along the eastern seaboard is only 20 per cent. In response, the Australian government announced in June 2004 the investment of some $450 million to upgrade the east coast line between Sydney and Brisbane. In the 2006 budget, the government announced an additional $270 million for upgrading works between Melbourne and the Queensland border. What will these improvements mean for the movement of freight? They will mean that a super-freighter travelling between Sydney and Brisbane will be able to cut four hours from the trip, and between Sydney and Melbourne, two and a half hours.

The government has also commissioned Ernst & Young, backed by a team including ACIL Tasman and Hyder Consulting, to undertake a north-south rail corridor study to investigate future demand, capacity and options. The government is looking not only to rail but also to the wider issue of intermodal relationships as transport bottlenecks, when they occur, can stifle our economic growth. We all remember the way this country was hamstrung by an inefficient waterfront. The price for this inefficiency was being paid for not only by exporters and importers but also by every Australian through a lower national product and, as a result, lower living standards.

The National Intermodal Terminal Study conducted by DOTARS was released in March this year. It identified Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane as key potential growth areas for intermodal capacity over the next 20 years. The Australian government supports projects that enhance links between multimodal transport, such as targeting the flow from road to rail and to the major ports in our capital cities. A seamless flow of freight is vital to an efficient national transport system. Intermodal networking is critical to achieving that end, as is choosing the most appropriate mode of transport for a particular good or journey.

Rail has an important role to play for the people of my electorate at a local and national level. The freight volume being transported along the Pacific Highway is increasing rapidly. This is creating an adverse effect on road safety from the vast increase in the number of heavy vehicles, which is occurring at a rate far beyond the ability of this road to cope. It is also having an adverse effect on the environment from the increased noise and vehicle pollution. It is causing great concern to residents in my electorate. They see the tragedy and carnage from these all too familiar road accidents. Tragically, these accidents often involve heavy vehicles. Residents are also seeing  the number of these heavy vehicles growing, virtually on a daily basis.

Despite the road being upgraded by the New South Wales government, with assistance from the Australian government under AusLink, these improvements are effectively being swamped by the ever-increasing freight volume. The proposed rail upgrade of the north-south corridor will remove 120,000 containers from the Pacific Highway and get them onto rail by 2011. The example of the Pacific Highway holds true around the country. If we do not maximise the use of rail, our road system will eventually clog up and our ability to move easily from place to place through the road network will be compromised.

Rail is vital to the future development of our nation and to the future of road safety. We must continue to upgrade rail. It is a mode of transport for the 21st century. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contribution of the member for Cowper to this debate was disappointing, to say the least. He criticised the states and lauded the government’s achievements rather than arguing for a whole-of-government approach in conjunction with the private sector. The kinds of statements made by the member for Cowper highlight the reasons why there are problems in our rail network across the nation.

As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services I have learned how vital an efficient, well-maintained system is to the economic viability of our nation. Historically, rail has been of great importance to the development of regional Australia, and many of our great regional centres are located where they are because of their access to rail. For much of Australia’s history, rail has been the lifeblood of the nation.

The reports Tracking Australia, Revitalising rail and Progress in rail reform identify key areas that need to be addressed to make our rail a system for the 21st century. I would like to highlight now some of the recommendations in the reports. There is a need for a more comprehensive land transport plan. I am currently involved in another inquiry by the House of Representatives transport and regional services committee which is looking at ‘the role of Australia’s regional arterial road and rail networks in the national freight transport task’.

One of the things that has been brought home to me most clearly is the need for a comprehensive land transport plan. It seems to me that there is an ad hoc approach to so many issues related to transport. If we are really serious about developing our land transport and about being economically viable, we must have that comprehensive land transport plan. The reports state that there needs to be additional investment in interstate tracking—that is, the upgrading and straightening of rail lines. That is vitally important to our nation.

I have spoken about rail a couple of times before in this parliament and on both those occasions I identified the problem in relation to rail from Sydney to Melbourne. That problem still has not been fixed and Sydney is still a major bottleneck when it comes to rail. There is currently a proposal for an inland rail track between Brisbane and Melbourne. Whilst that sounds very good, and I am not opposed to it, I believe that what really needs to be addressed is the bottleneck around Sydney and the upgrading of the main freight line.

We need also to look at whether we need to have specially designated freight lines in our rail system. We need better management of access to national rail, competitive neutrality between private and government owned operatives and neutrality in conditions that affect competition between the different modes of transport, especially between road and rail. These issues were highlighted in the committee’s last report, and they are coming up again in our current inquiry.

It is really important to highlight the competitive nature of road and rail and to highlight that every user in Australia pays for the transport of freight by road but for rail it is only the government that invests in the infrastructure and those companies involved in the investment of infrastructure. Rail has significant environmental benefits to our nation, and from a social aspect it also contributes to our nation.

An integrated transport system that recognises the role of all forms of transport—rail, road and shipping—will develop the best economic outcomes for Australia while minimising the social and environmental costs. Australia needs a comprehensive land management plan, and it is important that the government commits to this plan now and immediately recognises the importance of rail by increasing and immediately funding it through AusLink. (Time expired)

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commence by commending the member for Cowper for bringing this motion to the attention of the chamber. To have his support on great infrastructure matters almost tempts me to write to our great Institution of Engineers in Australia and have him entered as an honorary member. It is nice to have recognition of the challenges that confront the nation with regard to transport.

It is worth while reflecting on the legacy left to our generation by our rail system. It was developed in a colonial fashion, with the rail system radially heading into the capitals of each of our major states, and, worse than that, it was even deliberately established with different gauges. The founding fathers of the day did not want the trade from other states impacting on their own markets.

Now we are paying an enormous price for that in that it has a negative impact on our economy, because it means that we do not have a rail system for our great continent that is north and south and east and west oriented in a network, such as you see in the economies of Europe and the United States. Even Europe had the foresight to at least establish rail systems that crossed what were then national borders, and they are much better positioned. Consequently we have far too much bulk freight on roadways, which of course creates other challenges to keeping our road system safe and capable of the huge load demanded of it.

It has been a great relief over the years to see the attention the government has been placing on creating what we should have had in the first place—that is, north-south and east-west freight routes—so that we can convey the commodities produced in regional Australia, which the member for Shortland made reference to. When you think about the way in which the rail systems were established 100 years ago, we have silos and railway stations with roughly a horse-dray drive separating them and around which communities developed. Those communities have become the villages, if you like, of regional Australia. So the member for Shortland has got that right, but we need to do much more.

It is a delight to see now that AusLink, which the government’s white paper established in 2004, is now getting to the stage of implementation with $2.4 billion to upgrade rail infrastructure before 2009. This massive injection of capital will overcome our timidity of years back when we, to the credit of the former government before the coalition, attempted to but did not commit the significant amount of funding that was needed. I can remember the conversion of the east-west Melbourne to Adelaide rail link. Included in that were substantial north-south links in my electorate to standard gauge, which gives the valuable freight of grain another option of two ports other than in Melbourne: in Geelong and Portland. But it was undercapitalised. Near $20 million was spent on those north-south links. To this day, the replacement of sleepers has not occurred. There was a transfer of the rail inwards of six inches to meet the standard gauge measurement. Nothing else was invested. That is now creating enormous pain in my part of the world because it was not done properly.

At least the commitments that now come through AusLink include significant capital and will entice partnerships with private enterprise across the nation. The member for Cowper has made reference to examples that are in his part of the world. The $2 billion worth of horticulture and produce that is produced in Mildura heads south for its first journey. Ultimately it has to go north to the thriving markets of Asia. The idiocy is that its first journey is south. We badly need those commodities—which are precious and need to get to markets as quickly as possible because they are perishable—heading north directly from Mildura, crossing the Murray River, all the way up to the ports. Darwin is a new port up there. So I am delighted to see this. I congratulate the member for Cowper for bringing up this resolution for discussion. I will be working hard to make sure that that particular ingredient of $2.4 billion gets well spent on rail. Of course, there is the additional challenge of the road system as well. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contributions of the members for Cowper and Mallee, which were by and large constructive without taking too many political points on too many occasions. I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the member for Hinkler, who chairs the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, of which, like my colleague the member for Shortland, I am also a member.

I want to take the opportunity presented by this particular debate not only because I agree with the proposed motion and its sentiments but because it quite nicely dovetails with the inquiry, which, as I have referred, the current House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services is undertaking. Of course, I would not pre-empt the consideration of the committee’s report or recommendations but during the evidence presented to the committee there has appeared to be a wide consensus among industry and government that we should do more—much more—for rail investment in Australia.

This debate on transport and the advantage and disadvantage of freight handling by road or rail—or even, indeed, by sea—has been widely canvassed for many decades. We have all heard the statistics that Australia’s freight task is due to increase by an extraordinary amount. In fact, it will at least double in the next couple of decades. It will put tremendous pressure on Australia’s east coast cities, and we are already seeing that. Already, state governments are starting to consider what this means to traffic, congestion, the environment and urban infrastructure, and how east coast ports will contend with all this activity.

In New South Wales, the Labor government has reconsidered its ports infrastructure by establishing its Ports Growth Plan, announced in 2003. The Illawarra region’s Port of Port Kembla, which I share with my other colleague in the House the member for Throsby, will massively increase its own freight handling task. Since the 2003 announcement, the New South Wales government has spent $14 million extending the existing multipurpose berth. At the moment, it is spending another $60 million on building administration centres, and warehouses to handle general cargo and the import of cars.

We already know the port can handle the new freight task, because we did it during the 2000 Sydney Olympics when over 9,000 cars imported during those games came through the Port of Port Kembla to take pressure off congestion in Sydney, and we undertook that task with existing infrastructure. Estimates are that, starting in 2008, the Port of Port Kembla will handle more than 240,000 car imports each year. With this port growth development underway at the Port of Port Kembla, this magnificent regional economic asset, when fully fitted up, could contribute $400 million to the Illawarra economy, according to the National Institute for Economic and Industry Research.

When I was first elected and appointed to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, and indeed during the process of finalising the terms of reference for the current inquiry, I deliberately placed the completion of the Maldon-Dombarton rail link back on the agenda. The Maldon-Dombarton rail link is a 35-kilometre link to the Port of Port Kembla which is half completed. In 1983 the Wran Labor government started the planning and it implemented the enabling legislation. The Greiner government stopped the project to complete this most strategic line in 1988 at the Avon Tunnel. It paid out $4.5 million in compensation to the contractors at this point rather than finish the job. My colleague the member for Cook would know all about that because he was the transport minister for New South Wales at the time.

Lest I be accused of being partisan, let me say that since that time I have acknowledged that all of the government and industry advice indicated that the completion of the Maldon-Dombarton was not considered viable at that time because the business model relied heavily on coal. But, as I tell my state parliamentary colleagues and others, in acknowledging this fact, the government and industry advice also contains some very significant qualifications. In 1994, the New South Wales department of transport advice to the then minister said, ‘at this stage’. The view of major industry in the Illawarra has also changed significantly. Indeed, the Port Kembla Coal Terminal has now indicated support for the completion of this link.

I also wish to acknowledge the untiring efforts of one of Australia’s experts on rail, Dr Philip Laird at the University of Wollongong, who has been a constant advocate for the completion of the Maldon-Dombarton link. Since I put Maldon-Dombarton back on the agenda, I have monitored with quiet interest the range of individuals and organisations that have now emerged to champion its completion. Indeed, it is often said that success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphaned child. I can well see the evidence of that today. As the nation experiences a minerals and resources boom and the local Wollongong community continues to see the enormous investment going into the Port of Port Kembla, a major reassessment of the feasibility of the Maldon-Dombarton is taking place. (Time expired)

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

I am delighted to support the member for Cowper in this debate on the freight rail network, which I believe is one of the most important issues in Australian transport today. We have to get used to a few facts of life. One of them is that we have a very poor rail system by international standards, and we are a country that could benefit from a really good one.

Although various experts will disagree with what are the exact time frames, it would be fair to say that by the year 2020 the freight task on road will have doubled. By the year 2030 it will have trebled. The problems we are seeing on routes like the Pacific Highway and at the entry to ports around Australia are going to magnify time and time again. Equally, we are falling behind in freighting. Despite the fact that the federal government is spending $2.4 billion upgrading the main trunk systems of rail, and despite the fact that 81 per cent of the freight between Perth and Sydney and 81 per cent of that between Perth and Melbourne is carried by rail, between Melbourne and Sydney rail freight is only 12 per cent and between Sydney and Brisbane it is only 19 per cent. If you take a theoretical direct line from Melbourne to Brisbane, although no direct line exists, it is 21 per cent.

On the best estimates, that is not going to improve beyond about 30 to 35 per cent. So we know that, through the most productive part of Australia and in linking up the major capitals of this country, we are going to have a problem in the very near future. I am pleased to see my colleagues who have been here today: the members for Shortland and Cunningham, both of whom have been great supporters of mine on the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, which they spoke about, and the member for Cowper, as Cowper arguably has the worst road problems of any electorate in Australia.

While we were taking evidence in Sydney recently, Vince O’Rourke, who is arguably the best railway man in Australia, having held distinguished positions in both New South Wales and Queensland Rail, said this:

We are suggesting that we should build a modern railway line between Melbourne and Brisbane on the shortest corridor of about 1,600 kilometres to 1,650 kilometre west of the Great Dividing Range on the flat country with very low gradients, that it should cater for high speed freight trains up to 160 kilometres per hour and double-stack trains travelling at about 120 kilometres per hour.

The argument Mr O’Rourke put to us was that every time we fix up rail in Australia it is incremental. We patch up a bit of Sydney, we put in a temporary freight corridor and eventually it is taken over by a suburban line. We do this in all the capitals. We fix up a grain line from 40 kilometres up to 60 or 70 kilometres. But we are always acting incrementally. We are not going to the heart of the problem. He said, ‘Just for once, let’s build one to the highest international standards.’ He admitted that he was part of the GATR group. Another group also has a very fine proposal before government at present, in the report that has recently gone to Minister Truss—that is, ATEC. Both of those proposals illustrate the urgent need for a good rail system in this country.

Recently, the Gladstone Observer, which is one of my local newspapers, reported delays in loading coal at the Central Queensland Port Authority that cost mining companies such as Felix Resource, Xstrata, Rio Tinto and Wesfarmers millions of dollars. In the past six months, Felix Resources alone have incurred demurrage fees of more than $5 million, primarily as a result of port congestion. Company CEO Brian Flannery is on the record as saying that it is not just a matter of outdated port infrastructure but that Queensland Rail’s connectivity with the Port of Gladstone is also causing problems.

The point I am making is not a crack at the port authority in Gladstone—it is a very good port—but rather that all across Australia we have to improve our rail systems, our arterial rail systems and our connectivity to the ports. We have to get a culture of rail that removes a goodly portion of Australia’s freight task from road to rail. In that way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy that rail will become better and better. But we must make this first stance. I support the motion.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cowper for bringing on this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to speak on something I am very passionate about, as it relates to my electorate in the south-west of Sydney. As a member representing an outer metropolitan seat, transport infrastructure debates, particularly those contemplating the future of the east coast corridor, are of interest to me. Debates on the transport future of the east coast are not simply considered from the perspective of passenger transport. The future of freight transport, given that Minto and other areas in my electorate are designated as freight hubs, is of particular significance.

South-west Sydney—and particularly areas like Ingleburn, Prestons and Minto, as I just mentioned—is a significant contributor to Australia’s manufacturing industry. Nearly 50,000 people are employed in the manufacturing sector in the south-west of Sydney, so the sector has considerable economic significance for us and for the nation. In addition, the electorate of Werriwa ranks 10th in the country in terms of business involvement in the transport and storage industries.

The synergies and efficiencies between better integration of the manufacturing sector in the region and the means by which products get to its customers are key to the future prosperity of south-west Sydney. Naturally, it follows that the social, economic and environmental future of south-west Sydney cannot be considered in isolation from the consideration of the infrastructure needs of the region. The region is growing rapidly, and this growth needs to be enhanced and accommodated by the appropriate level of infrastructure. Local companies are good enough to compete on the world stage, and many already do this. This should be supported and encouraged wherever possible. The best means to support and encourage such development is through the provision of efficient and effective transport links.

I was pleased to hear my colleague the member for Cunningham raise the issue of the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. This piece of infrastructure is an important one for the future of the Macarthur region, given the upgrade of port facilities at Port Kembla and the consideration being given to the development of a number of freight hubs in the south-west of Sydney. The decision of the New South Wales government to introduce a three-ports strategy, which includes considerable expansion of Port Kembla, offers the south-west of Sydney a unique opportunity.

However, given the cost of developing the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, which I understand will run into many hundreds of millions of dollars, the significance of that should be considered for what it is. It is a nationally significant piece of infrastructure and should be funded accordingly. Given the significant costs of modern infrastructure projects such as these initiatives, which obviously will have an impact on us, there is a role for state government; but the federal government cannot avoid meeting its responsibilities to provide the necessary financial support to develop those much needed pieces of infrastructure.

The motion before the House today also supports the continued development of the intermodal rail links. There is no doubt that intermodal hubs—one of which is in my electorate and is owned by the Macarthur Intermodal Shipping Terminal, which is located in Minto—are an important element of Australian transport’s future, particularly in and around Sydney, given the cost of land near port facilities. The Macarthur Intermodal Shipping Terminal is a significant business and I welcome the contribution it has made in reducing the number of trucking movements in and about local streets and also, for that matter, on the Hume Highway, because those pieces of road infrastructure are very much critical commuter corridors.

The rising cost of transport fuels, which we heard some discussion about earlier today—and which we will obviously hear plenty more about in due course—will drive a lot of the attention to efficient lines of transportation for businesses. Quite frankly, this should not be lost on people when we are moving to improve our domestic consumption of raw materials— (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for private members’ business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.