Hansard 1/8

[arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int>]

       Australian House of Representatives Hansard for 8th February 1999
                                       
                           PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
                              Rail Infrastructure
                                       
                        This document has DRAFT status
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Main index
   Previous article
   Next article
   Index above
   Article information
   PDF version of this page
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) (12.31 p.m.)--I move:
That this House:

(1) draws the attention of the Government to the condition of the national
rail track;

(2) commends the Government for its commitment of $250 million to rail
infrastructure but asks that it be expanded;

(3) calls for the declaration of national rail highway from Brisbane to
Perth; and

(4) seeks removal of impediments to a seamless interstate rail system.

   The most neglected mode of Australian transport is unquestionably
   rail. As we approach the 21st century we expect it to make a
   significant contribution to the efficiency of the Australian economy,
   but for the most part we restrict it to a 19th century capability. If
   you think I exaggerate, I refer you to the Melbourne to Adelaide rail
   link. About 270 kilometres of that distance--namely, the section
   between Melbourne and Ararat, or nearly one-third of the journey--is
   restricted to a speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour, whereas 115
   kilometres an hour might be a more desirable target. Worse still, this
   same stretch has 12 further speed restrictions ranging from 12
   kilometres per hour to 65 kilometres per hour. Little wonder then that
   the journey takes three hours longer by rail than by car and that the
   rail transit time between these two major Australian capitals is 13
   hours--the same time that it took 60 years ago. Little wonder then
   that industry, business and tourism ask: is government serious about
   rail?
   The one nation on earth that should be dedicated to a highly efficient
   shipping and land transport regime is Australia. We know what happened
   to ANL--it is almost too painful to contemplate. But now this crunch
   time has come for the poor relative of land transport--rail. In fact,
   so urgent is it that, if a plan of action is not devised and
   implemented within the next 10 years, the interstate rail service in
   certain corridors could become irretrievable.
   
   If we are serious about rail being able to compete with modern road
   transport, if we are serious about the efficient distribution of bulk
   commodities, if we are serious about our commitments to the
   environment, if we are serious about road safety and if we are serious
   about the economic efficiency of Australia, the Australian rail system
   must be addressed. That is what I seek to do with this motion before
   the House.
   
   The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications,
   Transport and Microeconomic Reform pulled no punches in its bipartisan
   report into the role of rail in the national transport system. It was
   a unanimous report. As chairman, I make no apologies that we said that
   we did not want the report to have 40 tame recommendations, 20 of
   which called for further studies. We set out with the target of 10 or
   12 hard-hitting recommendations. In the event we ended up with 16.
   
   During that inquiry the committee received 175 submissions, held 14
   days of public hearings and examined 147 witnesses from 84
   organisations. The committee spent six days on inspections, which
   varied from track facilities in the Pilbara to the condition of the
   said Melbourne to Adelaide line near Ararat, and from Queensland's
   tilt rail project to Goninan's Spotswood maintenance centre.
   
   Minister Sharp and subsequently Minister Vaile asked the committee in
   its terms of reference to examine the administration, operation and
   pricing of the national rail network, opportunities for private sector
   participation, means to access and utilise the rail network, effective
   investment in and ownership of the rail network, and characteristics
   of international best practice. The one denominator that is common to
   all those terms of reference is the track. If you do not get the track
   right it does not matter what rolling stock you buy, it does not
   matter what promotion of the railways you do, it does not matter
   whether government removes excise from fuel or not. All these things
   pale into insignificance if the track, the thing that takes the
   trains, is not in top condition--efficiencies will not occur.
   
   When trains in Europe are running regularly at 350 kilometres an hour
   and freight trains at 180 kilometres an hour, it is a joke that on our
   major trunk routes we have trains travelling between 10 and 65
   kilometres an hour. We are an international joke when it comes to
   travel.
   
   In the release of the report on 12 August, I said that to achieve
   national best outcomes the committee had recommended three key actions
   for the Commonwealth to undertake. The first was to declare a national
   track on the standard gauge rail track linking Brisbane to Perth via
   both Melbourne and Broken Hill. By `declare' we mean declare it for
   purposes of access. The second was to address the chronic
   infrastructure deficiencies in the national track and the third was to
   immediately invest in the national track.
   
   The committee's proposal for a declaration of the track from Brisbane
   to Perth is a radical departure from the current situation and
   parallels the Commonwealth's road funding arrangements where it is
   responsible for the national highway, Highway 1. In effect, the
   standard gauge rail line from Brisbane to Perth would become the
   national rail highway, such as the Bruce Highway, the Princes Highway
   or whatever. Highway 1 is a vital artery for the nation's road system.
   Equally, a dedicated rail highway could achieve the same thing.
   
   The committee went on to recommend that the Australian Rail Track
   Corporation's role as the one-stop shop for access be enhanced by
   giving it control and management of the national track, including
   those sections of the interstate network currently controlled by state
   authorities. We believe this is absolutely essential.
   
   In launching the report, I highlighted the need for national
   consistency in standards and operations. The break in gauge is more
   than just the width of the track. Many witnesses gave examples
   highlighting how difficult it is to operate across jurisdictions;
   there are so many standards on just about everything. The list of
   inconsistencies impeding rail transport is long and almost seems
   beyond belief.
   
   To achieve a national approach in rail for the national track, the
   committee recommended that the Commonwealth fund a one-off grant to
   standardise signalling, radio and telecommunications and safety
   operations; the adoption of national standards for the condition of
   the track; and a strategic approach to providing consistency in safety
   standards and practices. While we went on to talk about other things
   such as training, operating procedures, transparency and access, the
   track was the essential and pivotal argument to our case.
   
   I repeat that, unless as a matter of urgency we deal with the
   infrastructure and other issues raised in the committee's report and
   that we do that in the next decade, rail will deteriorate to a point
   where the situation will become irretrievable. The appalling condition
   of the infrastructure for rail was one of the biggest points to emerge
   from that inquiry. It is not acceptable to have 70,000 concrete
   sleepers sidelined in a marshalling yard near Pura Pura and to have
   20- and 30-metre stretches of the same train line adjoining that
   marshalling yard sitting in pools of mud.
   
   If we want rail to continue to have a role in the national transport
   system, substantial sums of money need to be invested in
   infrastructure. We recommended the investment of $750 million to fix
   the worst deficiencies of the national track. That needs to be spent
   in the next three years. We then recommended the investment from 2001
   of $2 billion over 10 years, but that is to include funding in
   partnership with the states and territories or the private sector.
   
   Mr Speaker, that might sound like a lot of money, but when you
   consider that Queensland Rail will have spent nearly a billion dollars
   between Brisbane and Townsville in less than a decade on just one line
   it is not a big ask that, for a national system that links the five
   mainland capitals, we spend $2.75 billion over 12 or 13 years. What is
   important about it is that we have a bipartisan will to make it
   happen. The benefits are immeasurable. I again refer you to Queensland
   Rail, which has done some very innovative things over recent years.
   They have recently opened the tilt track line between Brisbane and
   Rockhampton. As recently as the 1980s, the train took 14 hours for
   that journey. The tilt train takes seven. (Time expired)
   Mr SPEAKER--Is the motion seconded?
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Main index
   Previous article
   Next article
   Index above
   Article information
   PDF version of this page
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
    Information on the PASTIME Project is available.
    The answers to some commonly asked questions are available.
    Please report any problems or make suggestions via our feedback form