Transport Administration Amendment (Light Rail) Bill

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [8.04]: I am pleased to resume debate on the Transport Administration Amendment (Light Rail) Bill. I reiterate that the Opposition will support the legislation. Since I last addressed the House on this matter negotiations have continued with crossbenchers, representatives of the Total Environment Centre and the Minister's office. Following the Opposition's support of certain amendments, which relate to development planning and the dispute resolution facility, particularly with the Roads and Traffic Authority and the State Rail Authority on light rail projects, and the development of a strategy with considerable detail of light rail initiatives for the immediate and long-term future betterment of this State, negotiations have successfully culminated in the Government backing down from its earlier opposition to these proposals.

In a letter dated 12 November to Mr Jeff Angel the Minister explained his opposition to those amendments. Since the Opposition indicated its support for the amendments, the Minister has confirmed to the Environmental Liaison Office that the Government is willing to support in this regard crossbench members and the Opposition. I should like to include in Hansard a letter I received only a few minutes ago from the Environmental Liaison Office. It states:

Michael Photios,
Shadow Minister for Transport

Dear Michael,

Transport Administration Amendment (Light Rail) Bill 1996

Please find attached the final amendments to be moved by Peter Macdonald MP. I understand the Government will be supporting these.

Page 6344

We have agreed to allow PTAC to produce a light rail plan for NSW and the Minister will be giving certain undertakings in the House.

I pause to indicate my keenness, and that of all honourable members, to hear of those undertakings because it is critical to obtain them from the Minister for Transport in order to smoothly facilitate the passage of the legislation. Of course, in the absence of those undertakings the Parliament will impose the appropriate mechanisms in the other place.

Mr Langton: That is why you are in Opposition; cop it sweet!

Mr PHOTIOS: The Opposition looks forward to the Government and the Minister copping it sweet, to use the Minister's vernacular, in the other place if the undertakings are not given in this place. I commend the honourable member for Manly for his work, and I commend in particular Jeff Angel, Caron Morrison and Brent Hoare for their excellent work on behalf of the community. Clearly the legislation needed strengthening in relation to dispute resolution between agencies, but more importantly in providing guarantees that the legislation would not simply replicate the changes to the administration and structure of the State Rail Authority, which established the frame work legislation that the coalition strongly endorsed. Of course, it was the subject of a ministerial resignation threat. I am glad that the Minister saw the light and the coalition legislation, which was refined by this Government, was brought to bear.

That legislation established a framework, but to date nothing has happened with rail access. Importantly, representatives of public transport advocacy groups, not the least of which is the Light Rail Association, were keen to see the establishment of a committee to develop detailed plans for light rail and, failing that, a mechanism to guarantee such plans. The letter from Jeff Angel confirms the coalition's expectation that the Minister will give "appropriate undertakings" in the House. The letter continued:

There will however, still be a dispute settlement mechanism in relation to disputes between the RTA and Department of Transport, about the planning and development of light rail systems. The new clause is a little wider as it does not specifically name a Plan, but rather refers to "planning" which could now include proposals by the private sector. Thus we achieve a more level playing field.

I am grateful for the following comment:

Your support for our concerns has been crucial in facilitating the result of this Bill. Thank you.

I read that letter onto the record because it is important to appreciate that as this legislation is strengthened it is incumbent on the Government to develop a strategy in concert with the community through the Public Transport Advisory Council; or, failing that, to establish in another place a light rail advisory committee; or, failing that, to establish a parliamentary committee. As a result of these initiatives and the work of the crossbench members, particularly the honourable member for Manly, as well as the work of honourable members in another place and the Environment Liaison Office, working with me as shadow minister, the legislation has been appropriately strengthened.

As I said in my earlier remarks, the legislation is principally a planning document. Germane to the development of light rail in this State is the need to have a more coordinated focus and, dare I say, centralised planning approval process which will not involve a litany of local, State and Federal government departments and authorities. The Government is to be congratulated on developing appropriate legislation to facilitate that. The State Rail Authority was used, as honourable members will be aware, as a facilitator in the development of the light rail project of Pyrmont to Ultimo because of the inadequacy of current legislative arrangements and the Department of Transport will, as is appropriate, become the principal authority dealing with light rail developments for the future.

Land acquisition powers in this legislation have been been given to the Department of Transport, as well as the provision of light rail easements in corridors so declared. No government department or instrumentality will be compensated for those light rail easements or projects but, importantly, compensation will be provided to private interests where those developments are seen to be compromising a commercial interest. The Crown will be the applicant for all private and public sector light rail developments regardless of that private sector involvement. That provides a degree of focus and the legislation provides the framework to facilitate that. Importantly, in the planning regime it replicates what one generally has in the environmental and planning instruments of the State by making mandatory full public consultation and an environmental impact statement on any route that is involved.

I appreciate the concerns of the Business Council of Australia and the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales in relation to particular routes. On 23 October I had the opportunity to attend a transport study workshop at Parliament House which was sponsored by the Business Council of Australia. The workshop was attended by representatives from all sorts of groups, government and private. One feature of the discussion was the need for full, public consultation in relation to the route of the Pyrmont-Ultimo light rail extension on which the Government is currently working and hopes to make an announcement about in the early part of next year should it decide to proceed with the proposal.

Mr Langton: We are the Government and we make the announcement.

Mr PHOTIOS: I am pleased to foreshadow that announcement following my briefing by the Minister's office when those initiatives were indicated to me. I am grateful to the Minister for
Page 6345
Transport, and Minister for Tourism for that briefing and indicate my full support for the extensions. Light rail is not only an exciting way to go but, as is so often said, it is the missing link in our integrated public transport strategy in New South Wales. As the coalition always intended, with the first stage currently under construction and to be opened early next year, the Pyrmont-Ultimo light rail extension will provide for better public transport and will be the first of what I hope will be many light rail initiatives in New South Wales. The legislation also spells out the objectives for light rail and makes incumbent upon the department in its annual report to report on those objectives and their progress.

The Opposition believes that the original legislation does not go far enough, and it is for that reason the Opposition strongly supports the amendments detailed by the Environment Liaison Office. In that regard I turn to a report entitled "Light Rail: The missing link in Sydney's transport strategy, a proposal for a Metropolitan Light Rail Network Strategy and a Response to the NSW Government's Integrated Transport Strategy - 1994-2016", which was compiled by the Light Rail Association (Inc.). At the time of its release in August 1995 I, like other members, had the opportunity to study this report in detail. This being one of the rare opportunities honourable members will have to debate light rail in a New South Wales governmental context for some time in this Parliament, I congratulate the Light Rail Association on its work and commend that document to the Public Transport Advisory Council, which has been given the responsibility of preparing a comprehensive strategy and detail in relation to individual projects which clearly demonstrate the potential for light rail in Sydney.

The report focuses on the eastern suburbs, south-eastern suburbs, Warringah corridor, Epping-Castlereagh corridor, the inner west line, the Hoxton Park-Parramatta-Baulkham Hills region, Carlingford to Parramatta and Homebush and the Sutherland shire proposals. There is a wealth of opportunity to develop light rail in Sydney with this legislative framework and the commitment shortly to be given by the Minister for the Public Transport Advisory Council to develop some of these projects commercially. In its executive summary of the report the Light Rail Association had this to say:

The heavy rail system in Sydney is primarily designed for medium-to-long distance journeys. It has a relative high standard of seating-to-standing passengers, but its performance over short distances is very poor. This system is compromised by vehicles that are designed for long journeys.

The Light Rail Association wants to see a complementary rail system developed that will provide vastly better access from growth areas to regional centres and reduce pressure points on the existing rail system. It sees this as far better value-for-money than adding capacity to existing rail lines, as is the current intention. New line serving "new" areas means more new customers. A range of potential light rail lines in Sydney are submitted as the basis of a 10 to 15 year construction programme.

The challenge is now before the Government to come forward with a visionary, region by region comprehensive plan for light rail or alternatives to light rail - heavy rail or any other appropriate alternative because the mix of road and related public transport should embrace the missing link in Sydney's transport study. That proposal certainly should complement what the report congratulated the New South Wales on and that was, of course, the integrated transport strategy. It sought to supplement the document "State Road Network Strategy" and the State Rail strategic plan. With this legislation and the Government's commitment to something tangible, not rhetorical, we can look forward to some exciting times. The renaissance in public transport that was begun by the previous Government has stalled under this administration, with funding cuts and no new projects.

The only transport-related projects that this Government has embraced have been, to the credit of the Minister for Roads, the Eastern Distributor and extensions to tollways in Sydney's western and south-western regions. I congratulate the Minister for Roads on embracing those exciting projects. It is certainly to the Government's credit that it has seen fit to forge full steam ahead with the former Government's construction program, but the Opposition challenges the Minister to initiate more construction programs in relation to light and heavy rail. The Opposition takes credit, as does the former Minister, for those exciting initiatives: the Pyrmont to Ultimo light rail, to name one; the new southern railway, to name another. The challenge is before the Minister, issued by the environmental lobby groups across New South Wales, by public transport advocacy groups, by commuters crying out for new initiatives and, of course, by the Opposition. They have all come together to strengthen this legislation; to facilitate not just framework legislation of a planning nature, but to challenge the Government to come up with real and comprehensive proposals.

The integrated strategy which the former Government released in 1994 is, to quote the Light Rail Association, the most exhaustive attempt so far by a State Government to fill that void. It is to be hoped that this time it will succeed in bringing bureaucracies together. This legislation, supported by the Government, the Opposition and the Independents, provides a new, exciting challenge to the Government to provide the missing link in Sydney's transport strategy. The Opposition certainly looks forward to that happening. Let me conclude my remarks by referring to the proposal of the Light Rail Association and by highlighting one particular paragraph on page 6 of that association's document, which encapsulates the visionary challenge and the excitement that light rail proposes for the development of an integrated transport strategy in New South Wales. It demonstrates how invaluable light rail can be in playing a part in the development of transport strategies for the future. The proposal makes the following point:

Page 6346

The reason for adopting light rail instead of heavy rail or conventional rail systems is almost always the cost but also the environmental and user-friendly properties of light rail transit. Cost, however, is undoubtedly the dominant factor, and the main reasons for light rail's low capital costs are as follows:

The report focused on three reasons and, in three quick phrases, demonstrated how useful light rail can be as a cost-effective mechanism, particularly in regard to the exciting challenges of developing an integrated transport strategy in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. According to the document, light rail offers for the future:

(1) Its ability to operate without 100% grade separation from traffic and pedestrians.

(2) Its ability to operate on relatively narrow corridors, (7m), its ability to climb grades of 7% with ease and its ability to take sharper curves than conventional rail.

(3) Its potential in relatively short tunnels and overhead viaducts as well as in roadways and pedestrian malls.

Light rail will certainly provide a great opportunity for the future and the Opposition, working with the crossbench members and public transport advocacy groups, is pleased to support the legislation, to strengthen it, to add a bit of muscle and to encourage the Government to finally embrace the important amendments which will create a better dispute resolution process in relation to the Roads and Traffic Authority and State Rail Authority. Disputes may not arise; they certainly should not arise, but if they do the mechanism for resolution of such disputes is important. It is even more critical to make it incumbent upon the Minister not merely to engage in rhetoric and framework legislation but to do something meaty to support public transport.

The Government has failed the State in respect of public transport. It is taking the "public" out of public transport - not because of fare increases which seem to come with rapidity, and not because of staffing cutbacks. My gosh, I heard criticism of Bruce Baird's cutbacks but this Minister is cutting back even more determinedly. He wants to take even more staff and more money out of the public transport system. The Opposition has provided the Government with an exciting opportunity to commit itself not just to rhetoric but to real growth and real strategy. The Opposition wants to see the introduction of light rail; it wants to see the Government getting it under way and making a financial investment. Despite the big cutbacks to the public transport capital budget that the Minister has secured in recent times, there is now an opportunity to rebuild the public transport system with legislation such as this.

The Opposition supports the legislation and looks forward to the Minister's assurances in relation to the undertakings that we expect he will give to the House in relation to the Public Transport Advisory Council and its obligation to produce a light rail plan for New South Wales. In the absence of satisfactory undertakings, the Opposition will, in another place, work with public transport interest groups, the environment movement and the crossbenchers, from a parliamentary perspective, and on behalf of the community impose on the Government a light rail advisory committee. The Opposition foreshadows that process if those assurances are not satisfactory, because the public wants answers and wants action; the public wants an end to cutbacks in funding for public transport under this Labor Government; the public wants to see real plans and real strategy and some vision from this Minister for the first time.

The Opposition wants the "public" back into public transport. With those few words I support the legislation, and the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition and by the honourable member for Manly. I commend all of those who have worked tirelessly to convince the Government of the necessity to embrace these amendments. I look forward to a light rail plan well before the next election, so that the public will be in a position to judge the Government, not just on its merits but on the reality of what it produces as a result of this important framework legislation. I have pleasure in commending the legislation as it will be amended.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.26]: I wish to make a few comments about the legislation. It is indeed welcome, because it shows the commitment of the Government to light rail in this city, to a renaissance in light rail. It has been 36 years since the last trams rattled through the city. The Minister, in his second reading speech, spoke about the fact that these vehicles are not now recognised under the Motor Traffic Act, so this legislation is both timely and necessary. I was pleased to hear the Minister speak in glowing terms about the new Ultimo-Pyrmont light rail transit system, which he described as providing reliable, fast and accessible transport and as a catalyst for urban regeneration in the Ultimo-Pyrmont area. Light rail public transport systems are catalysts for urban growth and urban regeneration.

The bill provides for light rail systems to be exempted from stamp duty and land tax. It also confirms that normal road rules will apply to trams and extends third-party insurance. In particular the tax benefits will encourage light rail systems to be developed elsewhere in this city. The Minister has been a fairly recent convert to enthusiasm for light rail. In a press release dated 8 December 1993 he, at that time shadow minister for transport, said that the Pyrmont light rail system - a project of the previous Government - was misdirected. The press release stated:

The Fahey Government's proposed Central-Pyrmont tram system will not integrate with any existing transport services, will not adequately serve the residents of Pyrmont and will create more congestion in the CBD.

"Millions of dollars of State funds and Federal Better Cities funds will be spent on this system, which employs overseas rather than local technology and which does not connect with any CBD railway or monorail station," Shadow Minister for Transport, Brian Langton, said today.

A few years ago the then shadow minister for transport was very negative about the Pyrmont-Ultimo light rail system. Bruce Baird, the Minister's
Page 6347
predecessor, did not adhere to that view when he released a light rail strategy in January 1995, shortly before the last State election. He painted a vision of light rail systems which could operate throughout the metropolitan area, including servicing my electorate along the M2 and the Baulkham Hills-Parramatta corridor. It is that issue that I want to address particularly tonight because my electorate of The Hills is one of the only electorates in this State that has no government public transport whatsoever. In the western part of my electorate Rouse Hill is being developed and hundreds of thousands of people are scheduled to move into the area. Without public transport, there is the potential for a planning disaster in the area.

I was pleased that the Minister for Transport visited my electorate recently to attend a transport seminar, at which he spoke about his understanding of the need for public transport for The Hills and the new north-west sector of the electorate. I ask the Minister, as well as supporting the Pyrmont-Ultimo light rail system, to examine the possibility of introducing a light rail system for my electorate. It is my understanding that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning is undertaking a feasibility study on a route from Parramatta to Rouse Hill. It would seem that the Government is at least moving in the right direction, and it is not surprising that it has recognised the need to do so. Four or five months ago I conducted a survey of a thousand people in my electorate and was interested to note their enthusiasm for light rail. They showed a preference for a light rail system as opposed to heavy rail in a ratio of 2:1.

The people of my electorate understand the clear cost benefits and increased flexibility associated with light rail. Light rail carriages could run more frequently than trains, a light rail system is much cleaner than buses and there is also the benefit of ease of use in that people know where to catch a tram, which encourages new users. There are safety aspects associated with light rail in that the trams will have single carriages as opposed to the multiple carriages of a train. The carrying capacity of a modern light rail system, up to 25,000 people an hour, is substantially greater than that of bus systems and marginally greater than that of the O-bahn system, about which I have corresponded with the Minister and which I would dearly love to see incorporated into the dedicated bus lanes along the M2.

At the transport forum in my electorate the Minister for Transport said that he felt that heavy rail was not an option for The Hills district because of the population densities. I agree with the Minister. My constituents also agree, as shown in their responses to my survey. The Light Rail Association is enthusiastic about the prospect of developing a light rail system to Rouse Hill and the Baulkham Hills area. The association outlined in a paper the substantial benefits of light rail over heavy rail. I am sure that the Minister is aware of those benefits, as he has now become enthusiastic about the prospect of introducing light rail in Sydney. The cost of a light rail system would be only $8 million to $10 million per kilometre, compared to $50 million per kilometre for a heavy rail system. There are also substantial benefits in that a light rail system is more user friendly, with greater frequency of service, and more people will be attracted to use light rail than would be the case if a heavy rail service were provided.

A light rail system could be privately funded if the Government provided a right of way. That is the kind of system I envisage could be introduced to my electorate; it is certainly the kind of system that is being introduced elsewhere in the world. In the past 10 years new rail systems have been introduced in London, Manchester, Sheffield, Sacramento, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Dallas, not to mention a number of new systems on the European continent. Light rail is a transport system of the future, it is a transport system of the twenty-first century. As the honourable member for Ermington has said, there is an opportunity for the Minister to put himself on the public transport map - to be a visionary - and provide to one of the fastest-growing parts of Sydney a public transport system that will be the envy of the rest of Australia.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [8.35], in reply: My well-known docile nature prevents me from replying to all of the lies, cant and hypocrisy I have heard in this debate from Opposition members. However, I cannot let some of the comments made go without reply. The honourable member for Ermington keeps talking about what the former Government did for public transport. His hypocrisy is extraordinary. He talks about the rail restructure. I remind honourable members that the rail restructure occurred after this Government took office in March last year. The current Government produced the legislation to restructure the State Transit Authority; the former Government did nothing about that. There has been a massive resurgence in the use of public transport since the most recent State election - the figures are on the board. In the past year an extra 6.8 million people have used Sydney's trains and an extra 6.9 million people have used Sydney's buses. That improvement comes after a massive decline in the use of public transport under the previous Government.

The hypocrisy of the honourable member for Ermington in talking about light rail is extraordinary, too. One of the reasons that the bill is now being introduced so urgently is that the former Government simply did not know how to set the process in place. Bruce Baird was happy to go off and make a press release about someone else paying for light rail in Sydney, but at no stage did he try to present to the Parliament a legislative framework to enable a light rail system to run. If this bill is not passed then the trams will not be able to run next March. The former Government and Bruce Baird were happy to allow someone else to pay for light rail and to make press releases about that but they
Page 6348
did not care that the system would not be able to work because there was no legislation to allow it. In fact, Bruce Baird, when invited by government authorities, specifically refused to bring this legislation to the Parliament.

Had Bruce Baird been in office the Ultimo-Pyrmont light rail system could not have run, and there would be no other light rail systems, either. If I decided to reply to everything the honourable member for Ermington said, I would be here all night. I thank the enormous number of organisations that have played a part in making sure that this legislation comes before the Parliament. I make particular mention of the Sydney Light Rail Company, the Environment Liaison Office, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Sydney City Council, along with the many other government agencies involved. The Roads and Traffic Authority was very helpful and made constructive suggestions to ensure that light rail vehicles will be able to travel on what are essentially public roads and to accommodate problems that will occur as a result of that.

One of the concerns raised with the Government is the need to properly investigate opportunities for light rail and to promote light rail as a viable, environmentally friendly transport mode. It goes without saying that both the Government and the Department of Transport champion public transport, whatever the mode may be. In the course of the department's usual work and transport planning investigations it will carefully examine light rail opportunities. As has been said, it is a long time since trams have run in Sydney. Notwithstanding the fact that trams did run in Sydney many years ago, light rail will essentially be a new feature of the public transport landscape. Public consultation will be essential to assess the possibilities effectively.

Honourable members would be aware that the Public Transport Advisory Council was constituted under the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Corporatisation and Restructuring) Act. I shall ask the council to give consideration to light rail as a matter of priority. Among other things, I will be asking the Public Transport Advisory Council: to consider where light rail services would be appropriate; to examine proposals for potential light rail routes; and, importantly, not to confine its investigations to the Sydney metropolitan area but to consider areas right across New South Wales.

It is also important that the Public Transport Advisory Council examine integration between light rail and other public transport modes, giving high priority to passenger demands while not neglecting operational issues. The things which the PTAC will do are exactly what were envisaged by the Government in legislation introduced early this year as part of the charter of the PTAC. It is something that it would do anyhow. I am happy to repeat that to the House tonight. I would expect that the Public Transport Advisory Council would be in a position to provide me with a comprehensive report on these issues perhaps within the next 12 months. As is provided for under the Transport Administration Amendment Act, the Public Transport Advisory Council may undertake public consultation for the purpose of exercising its functions. As I stated in my second reading speech, the principal purpose of the bill is to provide the framework for the development and operation of light rail systems in New South Wales. I am sure that all honourable members join with me in looking forward to seeing light rail vehicles operate on Sydney's streets early next year. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.42]: By leave, I move the three amendments circulated in my name in globo:

No. 1 Page 10, Schedule 1[11], lines 13-15. Omit "Any dispute in connection with the making of such a recommendation may be determined by the Premier.".

No. 2 Page 10, Schedule 1[11]. Insert after line 15:

(4) A regulation may not declare a route through any park or bushland to be the route of a light rail system unless the regulation is made on the recommendation of both the Minister administering this Act and the Minister for the Environment. In this subsection:

bushland means land on which there is vegetation which is either a remainder of the natural vegetation of the land or, if altered, is still representative of the structure and floristics of the natural vegetation, being land that is zoned or reserved for public open space purposes under an environmental planning instrument.

park means an area of open space used for recreation (other than bushland), being an area that is vested in or under the control of a public or local authority.

(5) Any dispute in connection with the making of a recommendation under subsection (3) or (4) may be determined by the Premier.

No. 3 Page 14, Schedule 1[11]. Insert after line 16:

104V Resolution of disputes concerning development of light rail

(1) This section applies to the following disputes:

(a) a dispute between the relevant Ministers about a recommendation under section 104N relating to the declaration of a route of a light rail system,

(b) a dispute between the Director-General and the Roads and Traffic Authority about any action of that Authority that may adversely affect the development of light rail systems and that is referred to relevant Ministers under section 261 of the Roads Act 1993 or section 111 of this Act.

(2) The annual report of the Department of Transport is to include a report of any dispute to which this section applies that is determined by the Premier.

Page 6349

(3) In this section, a reference to the development of light rail systems is a reference to the planning and development of new or significant extensions to light rail systems, but not including activities associated with the construction or maintenance of light rail systems.

The amendments are interconnected. About 10 years ago, as I understand it, the ability to create easements and conduct general planning for light rail was removed from the relevant legislation.

Mr Langton: By Bruce Baird.

Dr MACDONALD: But obstacles were therefore created which otherwise would have allowed a reinvigorated interest in light rail as a valid form of public transport. The bill goes some way towards removing those obstacles. The Minister should be commended for attempting to create more of a level playing field for those advocating light rail and to break down some of the turf wars that exist between government departments. We should not become too optimistic. The Minister talked as though we would have a network of light rail tomorrow morning. It will not happen that suddenly. The bill creates the level playing field and removes some of the obstacles but I want to see action in the next few years to put light rail systems in place. The bill relates to a particular light rail system. Light rail has been proposed in the northern beaches area and I would like action to be taken quickly.

My three amendments will take us closer to the goal of encouraging light rail. We all have a common interest in contributing to an environment in which business has confidence and is encouraged to invest in light rail and ecologically sustainable transport solutions, thereby resulting in cleaner air and a lower contribution to greenhouse gases. Light rail will potentially play second fiddle to the roads authorities unless the obstacles are removed. My first amendment is essentially a precursor to the third amendment, which relates to resolution of disputes. The second and third amendments create general dispute settlement mechanisms that cover areas in addition to disputes affecting the actual routes.

It is of interest that in relation to disputes about the declaration of a route the bill refers only to the use of roads by light rail. My third amendment allows for the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads to attempt settlement of a dispute, otherwise it goes to the Premier for a decision. However, there is no comparable system in relation to the use of parkland, including bushland areas. A similar protection mechanism is needed for these areas as the bill allows for other lands to be taken over by the department for an easement and a route without any further adjudication. If the RTA objects to light rail using roads it could be shunted out into what might be seen as a cheaper option, use of parks and bushland.

The second amendment uses the definition of "park" found in the Local Government Act and the definition of "bushland" in State environmental planning policy 19. It also requires that the Minister administering the legislation and the Minister for the Environment must agree on any route that is to be declared over parks or publicly owned bushland. If they cannot agree, the matter will be decided by the Premier. This reinforces the concept of not using parks and bushland as merely a cheap alternative. It may be argued that an environmental impact statement would be required if bushland or open space is affected, thus the environmental issues would be fully canvassed. This may be the case but a route using a road would be in a similar situation as there could be impact on the urban amenity.

The issue of alienation of community land such as parks is controversial and should be accorded serious consideration. That is essentially what my second amendment provides for. The third amendment relates to settlement of disputes in regard to route declaration and development of light rail systems. It uses existing dispute settlement provisions in the Roads Act. Development of light rail is defined not to include activities associated with constructional maintenance of light rail systems. However, it is defined to include the planning and development of new or significant extensions to light rail systems. Thus proposals for light rail prepared by the Department of Transport, the Public Transport Advisory Council or the private sector would be caught by this provision. The RTA must consider any adverse impacts on the planning and development of light rail in making plans for roads or using roads. If such impacts appear a dispute may be triggered between the Director-General of Transport and the RTA. If the Ministers cannot resolve the dispute it will then be determined by the Premier. I understand that when the Rouse Hill development was proposed there was significant anger in the Department of Transport that a public transport system was not considered but the RTA dominated in the decision making as to how that new development should be accessed. The third amendment is crucial as it creates a level playing field for light rail and will allow the public sector to develop proposals so that they can be seriously considered by the Government. I commend the amendments to the Minister.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [8.51]: The Government accepts the amendments.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [8.52]: The Opposition supports the amendments and commends them to the House. The Opposition congratulates the environment liaison officer, Brent Hoare, who is present in the gallery, on his diligence and hard work. These are exciting proposals and it is pleasing to see the honourable member for Manly and both sides of the Parliament coming together to support the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

Page 6350