Hansard 4/8

[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 SAWFORD (Port Adelaide) (12.56 p.m.)--We have not been very clever
   in the development of transport systems in this country, particularly
   over the last 40 years. In fact, you could say that our collective
   brain on transport systems has largely been disengaged. We have
   allowed one of our great resources--an extensive rail network spanning
   much of the continent--to deteriorate and become increasingly
   uncompetitive against road transport. It seems that the prevailing
   view in government for 40 years has been that rail is an outdated,
   19th century form of transport, intrinsically uncompetitive against
   modern road transport and destined to die out.
   
   I do not believe this is the case, nor do I think that the members for
   Throsby or Corangamite or Hinkler believe that either. I believe that
   rail does have a future in a balanced national transport plan and that
   the main problem for rail has been the failure of successive
   governments, both state and federal, to acknowledge that future and to
   fund it appropriately. It is a proper role for government to provide
   the transport infrastructure needed for the efficient operation of the
   national economy.
   
   The problem is that almost all of the money has gone into road
   infrastructure. Rail infrastructure and indeed shipping have not been
   similarly supported by government. On this the facts speak for
   themselves. Government spending on roads is almost 10 times that spent
   on rail transport. If the hidden subsidies for road trauma and
   compensation are taken into account, it is probably 20 times.
   
   The result of this differential funding is that, compared to rail,
   road transport has become a very competitive form of haulage. That is
   all very well and good--especially for trucking companies, oil
   companies and so on--but the role of government in creating a national
   transport infrastructure is much wider than that. That role involves
   providing balanced transport infrastructure according to a proper
   national plan--and that means appropriate funding for rail as well.
   Given the current state of our rail infrastructure, as outlined in the
   report Tracking Australia, if that does not happen soon, the road
   transport industry will be without competition from rail
   altogether--something which cannot be good for either consumers or the
   economy generally.
   
   The unbalanced focus on road transport is also responsible for
   additional costs which are not generally taken into account when
   comparing the efficiency of the different modes of transport. For
   example, the high and escalating cost in both human and dollar terms
   of the road toll, both in road trauma and compensation payments, is at
   least in part the result of the heavy increase in road transport.
   
   What this country needs is a diverse transport infrastructure. It is a
   mistake to put all our eggs in one basket. Infrastructure for road,
   rail and shipping transport must be properly funded by government for
   the economy to operate with the efficiency needed to grow. I believe
   that if governments had, over the years, maintained a reasonable level
   of expenditure to allow for continual and appropriate upgrading of the
   rail infrastructure then rail would be a much more competitive
   transport alternative today.
   
   Such expenditure would have enabled those aspects of the tracks which
   cause inefficiencies--timber sleepers, tight curves, steep gradients,
   and low and narrow tunnels and bridges--to be progressively
   eliminated. This would have enabled the industry to grow and to
   effectively utilise the new rail technologies. But because of decades
   of neglect, a massive injection of funding is needed to rebuild the
   infrastructure and win the confidence of potential investors.
   
   As the members for Hinkler, Throsby and Corangamite have pointed out,
   the track between Adelaide and Melbourne is one of the most neglected
   sections of the national network and is in desperate need of repair.
   In fact, sometimes it takes longer to transport freight along this
   track than it did 100 years ago. The problem is not confined to just
   this track. According to the Tracking Australia report, failure to
   provide substantial infrastructure investment may mean that major
   sections of the national rail network will be irretrievably neglected
   within ten years.
   
   However, the injection of funds needed to revive the rail industry
   will require a display of will and vision on the part of government,
   and the Howard government's offer so far of $250 million over four
   years is a miserly and wholly inadequate response. What is needed at
   the very least can be found in the recommendation of the Tracking
   Australia report: $750 million over three years to remove the critical
   deficiencies on a declared national track, and $2 billion over ten
   years from 2001.
   
   It is vital for the efficient running of our economy that we have a
   first-class transport system. But that means more than first-class
   roads. Rail has a future and a place in any planning for a national
   transport system. The current rail network is in dire need of
   substantive investment in both infrastructure and personnel. Road
   freight transport will undoubtedly continue to grow, and rail will not
   again in the foreseeable future reclaim the mantle of being the
   premier form of national freight transport. The national roads program
   is therefore very important. (Time expired)