Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2015, introduced by the member for Grayndler, a bill that I was very proud to second when it was introduced into the House last month. The proposed high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne, via Newcastle, Sydney and Canberra, is a project that should be made to happen. Unlike many other so-called nation-building projects, high-speed rail truly has the capacity to redefine the way we live, work and move. It would revolutionise interstate travel and turbocharge economic growth in the regional towns and cities along its path, like Newcastle.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to establish a high-speed rail planning authority to get the ball rolling with regard to the complex planning that is required for such a major project, a project that spans multiple state and local government jurisdictions. The bill would create an 11-person authority tasked with beginning detailed planning and, importantly, securing the rail corridor to prevent it being consumed by urban sprawl in the interim period. It is not the first time a bill to establish a high-speed rail planning authority has been introduced in this place, of course; the member for Grayndler first introduced a bill to do such in December 2013. Regrettably, the Prime Minister of the day had no interest in rail and refused to bring the bill on for debate. With a change of Prime Minister now—to a self-confessed public transport and rail enthusiast—the Member for Grayndler has re-introduced the bill. If the Prime Minister is serious about boosting mass transportation, he needs to act and not just tweet out snaps from his iPhone.

I do note that the need for high-speed rail from Sydney heading north was in fact identified by the current Prime Minister during one of his trips up to the Central Coast. On 5 February this year, the then communications minister sent out a series of tweets from a train travelling along the Hawkesbury River finishing with 'And now for some Hawkesbury River pix from the train! Very scenic if not rapid.' I agree; it is a beautiful trip from Sydney north. But it is a journey that now takes longer than it did 50 years ago. The 150 or so kilometre trip is taking up to three hours—indeed longer than three hours now. It is estimated that a high-speed rail trip would bring that journey from Newcastle to Sydney back to 39 minutes.

The economic case for high-speed rail is sound, delivering multiple benefits to the economy. The former Labor government established the facts with a two-part study, involving extensive consultation with industry and including international operators of high-speed rail, as well as significant community input. The study, published in April 2013, included the business case for the project, consideration of environmental issues, projections of patronage, proposed route, proposed stations and proposed time lines. It found that high-speed rail would return, for the Sydney to Melbourne section, $2.15 in economic benefit for every dollar invested; and, once fully operational from Brisbane to Melbourne, would carry approximately 84 million passengers per year. With the proposed route traversing more than 1,700 kilometres through four major cities, its delivery would demand significant cooperation between multiple governments in multiple jurisdictions, which is why Commonwealth leadership and coordination is essential.

In my electorate, support for high-speed rail is strong across the business sector and amongst the general public. Local representative bodies—including the local chapter of the Property Council, the Hunter Business Chamber and RDA Hunter—have all highlighted the business benefits high-speed rail would bring to Newcastle, as have local manufacturers. The University of Newcastle was also highlighted as a potential major beneficiary of high-speed rail for social and economic reasons the high-speed rail study.

As transport minister, the member for Grayndler, who has just entered the room, allocated $54 million in the 2013 budget for the authority to commence its work on getting this project started, but the incoming Liberal government cut all the funding. That action was short-sighted and irresponsible. The people of Newcastle want high-speed rail. The business, education, industry and community sectors all champion high-speed rail, and there is no doubt that our commuters most certainly want it. I commend the bill to the House.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I praise the Member for Grayndler for this initiative. I also compliment him on his tennis ability, which is improving under his new coaching.

We have bipartisan support here, but we might have a little bit of a divergence on how we should get there. I have maintained a great interest in high-speed rail, but it was not an interest that came out of trains; it come as a result of work that we did on sustainable cities and the need for connectivity. We have some considerable problems with the overdevelopment of our major cities, the cost of those cities, the congestion of those cities, the loss of productivity and the congestion issues within those cities.

We often look at high-speed rail as a way of getting from A to B, from a transport position. The study did look at that and it looked at the return on such. The concern we have is about the real purpose for high-speed rail: why do we need it? We have an extraordinary imbalance where Sydney and Melbourne are amongst the five most expensive cities in the world. This is an extraordinary thing for Australia, whose single greatest asset is real estate. The imbalance that has occurred as regional areas have declined and our major cities have grown presents a perfect storm for the creation of a strategic decentralisation to create housing supply in regions where land is less expensive. The infrastructure to achieve that is high-speed rail. This was discovered in Japan in the sixties, when Tokyo was the most expensive city in the world and amongst the most congested cities in the world. High-speed rail has seen Japan decentralise, the creation of regional cities and the pressure taken off Tokyo.

We have that same opportunity. The formation by the Prime Minister of a standing committee—and therefore a bipartisan committee—on infrastructure, transport and cities is looking at this very issue. It is looking at the partnership that must be created, which is the funding mechanism, and it is looking at value capture. It is looking at value capture very intensely because of the perfect storm that has been created by this imbalance of settlement and imbalance of cost of living between regional areas and our major cities. High-speed rail will open up housing that might be 20 or 30 minutes from our major cities. This housing currently might only be in the vicinity of $150,000 to $250,000 for a dwelling, compared to the average price of a house in Sydney, which is now over $1 million, and yet, with high-speed rail, it may be closer to the CBD in terms of time, which is the way we look at commutes. We do not look at commutes as being 15 kilometres, 30 kilometres or 100 kilometres. We look at the time it takes to get to work. Goulburn would be 30 minutes from Sydney. The Southern Highlands would be 20 minutes from Sydney. Newcastle would be 39 minutes from Sydney—and a very reasonable commute with beautiful countryside to look at.

When you look at the uplift of those property values, those property values will be competing with Sydney and Melbourne property values—the second and fifth most expensive cities in the world as far as property values go. The uplift is apparent. The value that is created is apparent, and then it is up to us to find the right mechanism of value capture to fund high-speed rail. It is an easy sum to look at if we were to move one million people into this region between Sydney and Melbourne. It should be noted, also, that the Sydney to Melbourne air corridor is the third busiest in terms of flights and fourth busiest in terms of passengers. Yes, transport between Sydney and Melbourne is required, but, when you look at the real purpose, it is to strategically decentralise—to provide a higher quality of life, to provide housing for the next generation, and to provide the opportunity for us to be a more productive, efficient society with a better quality of life and a plan for future growth. The Sydney to Melbourne corridor is just the first of a series of corridors that need to be looked at. The tools should not be put down—then we should move to the Sydney to Brisbane corridor and beyond.

This investment in infrastructure is going to allow us to grow for decades and decades to come. Anthony, I look forward to working with you for decades and decades to come on this important issue.

Debate adjourned.