Hansard 2/8

[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
   
   Mr HOLLIS (Throsby) (12.41 p.m.)--I second the motion. I support the
   motion moved by the member for Hinkler. I commend him for bringing it
   before the House and also for chairing the House of Representatives
   Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic
   Reform inquiry that produced the report Tracking Australia. One
   hundred years ago, rail and sea were the main transport modes for
   Australia. Rail, in many respects, was the pride of Australia,
   although narrow parochialism meant economic folly--separate gauges.
   Rail opened up Australia. Often railway terminals were the most
   substantial buildings in country towns. But from those days of glory
   little has been done to maintain rail and its lines have been allowed
   to deteriorate.
   
   Contrast this with Europe, where rail is coming again into its own as
   a transport and freight service. As recently as last week, the French
   government approved a new high-speed rail link between Paris and
   Strasbourg. This will be only one of a number of important new rail
   links in Europe. We also have to get away from the idea in Australia
   of either investing in rail or road. In a country as vast as ours both
   are vital, yet it is true that over recent years a disproportionate
   amount of funding has gone to the road network.
   
   The British government has recently published a white paper on the
   future of transport, dealing with roads, rail, air, shipping, cycling
   and even taxis. One wishes that a similar paper could be produced in
   this country so for once we could look at the whole transport chain
   and see how all the components fit together. Our quality of life
   depends on transport. We all travel, even if only locally, and we need
   an effective, national transport system. Transport policies in this
   country have always been dominated by the short term.
   
   Tracking Australia is a report that at least looks at rail in the
   medium to longer term. During the inquiry over 117 people and
   organisations gave evidence and the committee inspected the world's
   most efficient freight trains, hauling iron ore in the Pilbara region
   of Western Australia. However, on the other side of Australia where
   most people live, we saw National Rail and other interstate freight
   operators struggling with poorly maintained track in Victoria with
   numerous speed-weight restrictions, along with track having `steam
   age' alignment. The main impression of the committee was just how bad
   the condition of some of the mainland national track was. For example,
   as the chairman has said, we found a section of track between Geelong
   and Ararat with worn-out, old wooden sleepers slowing trains down.
   Concrete sleepers have been sitting by the side of the track for over
   three years.
   
   Another problem needing urgent attention is the upgrading of the
   safe-working arrangements between Casino and Brisbane. They were the
   subject of a crucial report by the ABC's The 7.30 Report on 6 November
   1998. The lightweight rail on the Melbourne to Albury standard gauge
   track, except for the Somerton-Tallarook section that was upgraded by
   the Keating government as part of its $430 million rail capital works
   in the 1992-95 program, has reached the end of its economic life since
   it was laid in the early 1960s.
   
   It is now a potential safety hazard for trains moving at any
   reasonable speed and needs adjustment. There is a curve for every
   kilometre plus steep ruling grades from Sydney to Albury. We were
   advised that many studies have been done on the need to upgrade the
   worst of the `steam age' alignment, but nothing has been done. It is
   of concern that the recently completed Booz Allen Hamilton report, in
   listing nominated and evaluated rail projects for the national rail
   network, did not even allocate funds for the planning of the rail
   deviations that will be necessary to lift the average speed of
   Melbourne-Sydney intermodal trains from the current 70 kilometres to
   the agreed 80 per hour. Since this target was set in the historic 1997
   rail summit of the Australian Transport Council as a five-year goal,
   we should either start work now or openly admit that we will fail to
   bring the rail track linking our two largest cities up to speed.
   
   Between Sydney and Brisbane the track alignment is even worse. Some
   396 kilometres or 41 per cent of this track fails to meet basic fast
   freight train standards of any curve having a radius of at least 800
   metres. This is one reason why the average terminal to terminal speed
   on intermodal freight trains is little more than 50 kilometres per
   hour on this corridor. Another reason is the lack of a modern
   signalling system north of Casino. As found by the 1994 BTCE report
   for the National Transport Planning Task Force for this rail corridor:

Transit times, reliability and costs are so poor that the corridor may not
survive as a commercial freight alternative unless improvements are
implemented.

   Not only is the future of this corridor in doubt but also other
   interstate rail corridors may be lost if they are not upgraded to
   basic modern engineering standards.
   
   The Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor was noted as far back as 1989 as
   being in jeopardy by an earlier Booz Allen Hamilton report for State
   Rail. Its present outlook, at current levels of upgrading, is poor.
   Indeed, the current upgrading of the Pacific Highway to a near
   four-lane standard by 2005 may prove to be in vain if all it achieves
   is taking more and more freight off rail and putting it onto
   B-doubles. This would be likely be followed by the closure of the
   line.
   
   The committee was advised that, on the basis of earlier BTCE estimates
   for the National Transport Planning Task Force, it would cost about $3
   billion to upgrade the national rail system so that freight trains
   could operate efficiently and effectively against trucks using the
   upgraded national highway system. The committee's report makes it very
   clear that, if we are to retain railway tracks between our largest
   cities, they will need upgrading at a cost far exceeding the $250
   million currently on offer over four years by the Howard government.
   We have recommended that this amount be increased to $1,000 million
   over the next three years, and that from 2001 a further $2 billion be
   invested. The amounts involved may seem large, but the stark choice is
   either upgrading our national railway network linking our state
   capitals or closing it down and increasing the nation's road freight
   task by some 15 per cent. Australia's road freight task, about 114
   billion tonne kilometres in 1995, is already the highest per capita in
   the world.
   
   So the option of closing down the interstate rail network should be
   thrown out by this parliament and an increased allocation made for
   basic upgrading. This should include the basic deferred maintenance,
   plus funding for rail research and forward planning, and the lifting
   of overhead clearances of Melbourne-Adelaide to allow for
   Perth-Adelaide double stacked container trains to be extended to
   Melbourne. The cost of such clearance lifting, plus some grade and
   curve easing on the eastern side of the Adelaide Hills, would be of
   the same order as the new Adelaide Hills-Crafers Highway with its new
   tunnels, which is due to be opened later in 1999 at a cost of $138
   million. I would suggest that upgrading the Melbourne-Adelaide rail
   corridor should be given the same priority as this road works nearing
   completion.
   
   We also need to identify a longer term Melbourne-Brisbane route
   capable of double stacked container movements. This length of haul is
   best suited to rail. Yet as noted by the National Transport Planning
   Task Force in 1995:

. . . rail only carries 21 per cent of the long-distance freight. Rail
traffic has to pass over more difficult terrain than road, through Sydney, and
over a distance 24 per cent longer than road. Road traffic travels along the
Newell Highway, covering the door-to-door distance in 22 hours, compared with
rail, which requires 37 hours from terminal to terminal.

   In 1998, the government conducted a study of the use of road trains on
   the Newell Highway, and in 1997 our committee, when examining our road
   system, was bombarded with calls to upgrade the Goulburn Valley
   Highway. This could cost $500 million, and I have no doubt that
   planning is under way for this right now. An earlier report found that
   $1 billion would be warranted for the Seymour-Brisbane highways. What
   we need to do, and do quickly, is to seek the best advice possible,
   and compare the national benefits of spending $1,000 million on
   facilitating road trains on the Newell and Goulburn Valley Highways,
   or to spend about the same amount in developing a basic inland
   standard gauge railway from Melbourne to Brisbane via Parkes that
   would be capable of carrying double stacked containers. For my part, I
   would prefer to see trains on tracks rather than road trains on our
   national highway system in the eastern states.
   
   There are often suggestions made that the states, or the private
   sector, should invest in our interstate rail links. For the states,
   investing in interstate rail tracks is as reasonable as expecting the
   states to invest in the national highway system. The states' failure
   to invest in the interstate roads in the 1950s and 1960s was the
   reason that 25 years ago the Whitlam government formed the national
   highway system. To date, some $18 billion has been spent, in today's
   dollars, on the national highway system, whilst the federal outlay on
   rail capital works on interstate links is of the order of $1 billion.
   The committee in 1998, as per its roads report in 1997, like the
   National Transport Planning Task Force in 1994 and the Ecologically
   Sustainable Development Working Party on Transport in 1991, urged a
   more balanced approach to federal outlays in road and rail investment.
   Until we do this and get a much better balance between rail track
   access fees for trains and road pricing for heavy trucks, it is
   pointless expecting the private sector to make significant rail
   investments.
   
   In the lead-up to the centenary of Federation, it is relevant to note
   that our intercapital rail links played a vital part in the formation
   of the Commonwealth. The constitution gives the Commonwealth ample
   provision to not only operate railways but also to build and improve
   railways. The present government saw fit to effectively disband
   Australian National, and still wishes to sell National Rail. The least
   the government can now do is recognise the need for urgent investment
   in the national rail network. (Time expired)