The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.36]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The Government has developed this package of measures to facilitate the introduction of modern light rail transit systems in New South Wales. The fundamental aim of this legislation is to place light rail projects on the same footing as other public transport systems. It is a generic piece of legislation providing a framework for light rail development, construction and operation.

This bill, as presented to this House, incorporates amendments put forward by the Environment Liaison Office and introduced in another place by the member for Manly. The amendments were the result of positive consultation between the government and the Environment Liaison Office.

Honourable members may recall that I was recently questioned about the proposed extension of the Ultimo/Pyrmont project into the Sydney central business district. Let me assure the House that this legislation does not approve any extensions to the Ultimo/Pyrmont light rail project. Any extensions would proceed only following wide community consultation and the exhibition of a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

As I am sure honourable members are aware, the Ultimo/Pyrmont light rail transit system is now being built as the primary public transport mode to serve the Citywest redevelopment area. It will run from Central station, through Darling Harbour to the fish markets, providing reliable, fast and accessible public transport for the growing number of people living and working in this area. The project is already acting as a catalyst for urban regeneration in the fast developing Ultimo/ Pyrmont precinct.

With the Ultimo/Pyrmont system scheduled to be commissioned and commence operations in the first quarter of next year, legislative and regulatory gaps need to be filled.

In addition, the absence of a statutory framework for the development of the Ultimo/Pyrmont project highlighted areas where legislation could provide a more efficient and certain process for development of this transport mode.

This bill covers operational issues such as interaction between light rail and other vehicles, third party insurance coverage and powers for removing obstructions to light rail services.

As trams have not operated in Sydney since 1961, it is no surprise that these vehicles are not recognised by the Traffic Act. The amendment of the Act will confirm that the normal road rules can and will apply to in-street light rail operations.

The bill also provides for the removal of vehicles obstructing a light rail service. It allows action to be taken to clear a light rail route, similar to removal of vehicles blocking clearways. This will ensure that the reliability of light rail services is not jeopardised by vehicles and other objects being left across light rail lines.

The compulsory third party insurance scheme is to be extended to light rail vehicles to place them on an equal footing with other road-based public transport.

Fare evasion is to be discouraged through the creation of powers similar to those already available to State Rail. The bill will allow "authorised officers", including staff of a light rail operator, to issue infringement notices with fines paid into consolidated revenue.

Mr President, light rail development has regional and State significance, as it is a means of further improving the public transport network and implementing the government's urban planning policies. However, the absence of a clear, workable, and comprehensive statutory framework for light rail development places it at a disadvantage relative to other transport modes. There is a need for critical elements of decision-making to be brought unequivocally within the control of the State government.

A key weakness in the development of the Ultimo/Pyrmont project was the decision to proceed without a specific legislative and regulatory structure for light rail. This resulted in project development processes that were highly complex and therefore more costly and time-consuming than necessary.

These difficulties were principally due to the lack of a single government body with the power to facilitate light rail transit; the consequent need for a complicated legal structure to gain control of the light rail corridor through the State Rail Authority; and the requirement for multiple development and construction approvals.

Under this bill, the Director General of Transport is given responsibility for the development of light rail. To effectively implement this mandate, the Director General is to be given land acquisition powers. These powers will also apply to the Director General's other responsibilities, for example the development of inter-modal transport facilities which do not readily fit within the activities of the mode-specific transport operators.

Light rail systems usually operate at least partially on roads. Accordingly, the Ministers for Transport and Roads will be able jointly to make part of a road a light rail corridor under the control of the Director General of Transport. Once the corridor has been declared, the Director General would be permitted to create a light rail easement over the road to construct, maintain and operate light rail systems in the corridor.

No compensation would be payable to the relevant roads authority for acquisition of this land interest, though compensation would be payable if a private road were acquired. The public would generally continue to have the right to use the road in conjunction with light rail.

As light rail systems may be developed and operated by private sector parties, the Director General is to be given the power to authorise a light rail operator to use or have the benefit of the light rail easement and other land interests acquired.

The first light rail easement to be created will be the light rail corridor through Hay Street to replace existing land agreements with Sydney City Council and the Darling Harbour Authority for the Ultimo/Pyrmont light rail system.

For a variety of urban design, heritage and engineering reasons, it may be necessary to support electric catenaries from buildings or other structures such as street lights rather than from free standing masts. In those cases, there must be a straightforward means of acquiring the necessary rights to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. Property owners will be entitled to compensation for any damage caused by construction or the supports.

The Roads Act is being amended to ensure that, once a light rail route has been declared, the affected roads authorities do nothing inconsistent with the development and operation of the light rail.

The Director General of Transport is to be given powers of temporary access to land for construction of light rail systems.

Page 6771

The Ultimo/Pyrmont project is subject to planning consents under three planning instruments from the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the Darling Harbour Authority and the Central Sydney Planning Committee. The linear nature of a transport corridor potentially subjects any other light rail project to similar planning consent complexity. If a project runs across local government areas, there is clearly a risk of inconsistent requirements being imposed by different councils.

As with other major infrastructure projects, there needs to be a single, consolidated assessment process for light rail.

The crown is expected to be the applicant/proponent for future light rail projects, irrespective of whether the projects are publicly or privately funded. Accordingly, light rail projects are to be an "activity" under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

As a matter of policy, environmental impact statements will be prepared for future light rail projects. Such light rail projects would therefore be referred to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning for approval.

Developments incidental to the development of a light rail system, such as subdivision of land titles to create an off-street light rail corridor, are also to be covered by part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

As with other transport modes, consultation with the community is fundamental to the development of new light rail systems.

As well as the obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for consultation under the environmental impact statement process, the bill establishes new means of ensuring accountability to the public on light rail.

The Department of Transport will be required to spell out in its annual report its objectives for light rail, its strategies for pursuing those objectives and its progress in meeting those objectives. This is a further demonstration of the government's commitment to public consultation on significant public transport infrastructure projects.

These provisions build upon the initiatives contained in the government's Transport Administration (Rail Corporatisation and Restructuring) Act, which established the Public Transport Advisory Council. The Council, which is expected to hold its first meeting next month, provides advice to the Public Transport Authority and the Minister for Transport on any matter within its functions, including light rail.

The Public Transport Advisory Council provides an appropriate means of consultation with the community about the broader, long-term strategies for light rail and, indeed, for all public transport. In addition to providing strategic advice to the Minister and the Public Transport Authority, the Council can also provide a further means of consultation with the community about specific light rail projects.

As my colleague, the Minister for Transport, indicated in another place, the Public Transport Advisory Council will be asked to give consideration to light rail as a matter of priority. Amongst other things the Public Transport Advisory Council will be asked to consider where light rail services would be appropriate, to examine proposals for potential light rail routes, and importantly, to not confine these investigations to the Sydney area, but to the whole of New South Wales.

Mr President, I understand that it is expected that the Public Transport Advisory Council would be in a position to provide the Minister for Transport with a comprehensive report on these issues within 12 months.

The bill contains a number of other provisions intended to ensure light rail systems are not disadvantaged, particularly relative to other public transport modes.

Service authorities are to be compensated for reasonable costs to alter service conduits affected by the construction of light rail systems.

Light rail systems will be exempted from stamp duty and land tax. In addition, light rail corridors, but not facilities such as depots, will be exempt from local government rates and local government charges will be limited.

The Roads and Traffic Authority will be responsible for issuing engineering approvals for on-street light rail infrastructure.

The bill also includes a number of regulatory provisions and consequential amendments to existing legislation.

When trams last ran in Sydney, they operated under a mix of provisions of the Transport Act 1930 and parts of the Railways Act 1912, both of which were abolished in 1988.

Just as modern light rail is a world away from the trams withdrawn from service in 1961, we can no longer expect that the development and operation of this innovative public transport mode can be effectively carried out in a piecemeal way.

This bill provides the legal framework for the efficient development and operation of light rail systems. This will provide certainty for the government when considering light rail as another way to improve our public transport network.

Mr President, when I responded to a question on light rail on 24 October, it was evident from members' responses that there is a substantial body of support for light rail in this chamber. Passage of this bill will enable members to demonstrate their support in a tangible manner.

I commend this bill to the Council.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [11.36]: The Opposition supports this legislation as amended in the other place. No-one on this side of the Chamber would doubt the importance of light rail. Perhaps it is because I come from Abbotsford that I have a particular historical interest in light rail. There was a great local campaign run in Abbotsford initially, when the trams were introduced, to make sure they ran to Abbotsford. That was a successful campaign, and for many years the trams did run to Abbotsford. So the Abbotsford community is one that very much supported the whole concept of light rail.

In this modern day and age, some 35 years after the last tram ran in Sydney, we need to consider many other matters that make light rail a much more important issue today. I refer to issues such as the environment, the affordability of light rail, and the fact that some existing corridors would be suitable for light rail. Their use could maximise our public transport network, and make current public transport and general transport more viable by encouraging people to use public transport. This is particularly so in my inner-western area, one of the most ill-served by public transport in all of Sydney. Not only is the inner-western area densely settled, but Balmain, Pyrmont, Ultimo and other areas within the inner-west and north of the western railway line really only have buses. They have extremely cramped roads, and no freeways such as those enjoyed by people in other parts of town. There are horrendous traffic problems in those parts of town.

Page 6772

The first light rail project in New South Wales since the disappearance of trams in 1961 was taken up by the previous coalition Minister for Transport, the Hon. Bruce Baird. I think it appropriate that I put on record my commendation for him in getting the Ultimo-Pyrmont light rail project up and running. Such projects are particularly important considering the stresses that will be put on the inner-west transport system as we come up to and go into the Olympic Games in the year 2000. It is enormously important that we develop these systems of transport. As my colleague in the other place Michael Photios, the honourable member for Ermington and shadow minister for transport, said:

This bill puts light rail on the legislative agenda for this Government.

The Government deserves congratulations on facilitating its development. This framework legislation is very important in that State planning authorities will be brought together under one system of responsibility via the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. It will help make light rail possible. The reason that this bill is able to be supported by the Opposition is that amendments were introduced in the other place by the honourable member for Manly, with the strong support of the Opposition, to strengthen and tighten the dispute settlement mechanisms in relation to light rail routes. That issue too is enormously important.

The bill will create parity for intermodal road issues such as road rules and, importantly, will make sure that there are no gaps in provisions. Understandably, current Acts do not deal with light rail and accordingly there is a need addressed in this bill to create a level playing field. Third party insurance coverage is also of vital concern. The bill provides for the removal of any obstruction to light rail in much the same way as for normal road use, and even issues such as fare evasion are addressed. In other words, this is an important mechanism for facilitating development of future light rail projects. I look forward to the completion and development of the Ultimo-Pyrmont project by the Sydney Light Rail Company, which will be particularly exciting for people in the inner-western area. I am pleased to announce the Opposition's support for this legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.40]: This is possibly one of the best pieces of legislation to be introduced this session. The Government has finally recognised the significant contribution that light rail, as a modern transit system, can make to public transport within this State. The legislation puts light rail projects on the same footing as other public transport systems; provides a much-needed and long-overdue framework for the development, construction and operation of light rail; and assigns responsibility for it to the most appropriate Government department. Road authorities will no longer be able to do anything that is inconsistent with the development and operation of light rail once routes have been declared.

The Director-General of the Department of Transport will be responsible for the development of light rail. This will ensure that appalling oversights such as that which occurred with the Randwick light rail corridor will not happen again. A light rail corridor exists from the city to University of New South Wales, Randwick and Coogee. It is an old tramway corridor and the land had to be set aside for future light rail development in order to help alleviate public transport problems in the area. Buses in the area are overcrowded and any light rail development would have serviced residents of Randwick and Coogee, the Prince of Wales Hospital, patrons of Randwick racecourse and students and staff of the University of New South Wales. The area would have been perfect for light rail development as the land was already available and surrounded by high-density population.

In fact, the Sydney Light Rail consortium, which is currently building the present Central to Pyrmont line, indicated that once the city constructions were completed, light rail to Coogee would be the next viable option. Unfortunately, the previous State Government approved the sale of the Randwick rail corridor land without placing any restrictions on the title to the property. Admittedly, the Government approved the sale subject to two conditions: the provision of public car park facilities and the preservation of options for meeting future transport needs. However, these conditions were only placed on the contract for the initial sale. The State Transit Authority sold the land in 1994, much to its disgrace. In 1995 Randwick council granted an approval for a development company, Allison Gardens Pty Limited, to build a three-storey, 40-flat building on the land at 144 Allison Road.

Unfortunately, the approval included only a six-metre setback from the northern boundary of the property to accommodate light rail and the land has since been on-sold to another company, Brillton Pty Ltd, which is now building on the land. The minimum space requirement for light rail is seven metres. The developer's plan is based on a six-metre setback and therefore does not allow sufficient space for light rail development. That was an extraordinarily short-sighted move by the previous Government and the Minister at the time. The Hon. I. Cohen and I made a number of submissions about that but we were completely ignored by the previous Minister. Randwick council attempted to negotiate alterations to the development order to maintain the light rail corridor but the developer would only concede the extra metre if height restrictions on the development were waived so that an eight-storey complex could be built.

Such a development would have not been in keeping with the general character of the area or existing developments, nor would it have received residents' approval. Residents, community groups and concerned councillors were therefore left with no option but to call on the State Government to intervene on their behalf and create an easement for light rail purposes covering the area. However,
Page 6773
under existing legislation the Minister for Transport does not have the power to create such an easement, and the Randwick light rail corridor has effectively been lost because of stupidity and ignorance. This bill gives the Director-General of the Department of Transport specific power to acquire land for light rail easements and ensures that road authorities will not be able to negatively affect light rail corridors in the future. This bill therefore proves that the Government is firmly committed to promoting a shift in thinking towards public transport and is no longer willing to hang its public transport hat on mere tollways and buses.

Light rail developments provide a very real and viable alternative to other overcrowded, space-consuming and grossly polluting forms of public and private transport. Light rail vehicles are quiet and airconditioned, and can carry up to 200 people in style. They have no steps and their wide doorways and aisles provide easy access for people with prams and strollers, wheelchairs and shopping. Light rail cars can also negotiate grades at least as twice as steep and curves six times as sharp as those of heavy rail cars. Light rail systems do not require signals, stations, platforms, heavy overhead catenary or grade separations at road crossings. They are electrically powered and therefore produce absolutely no emissions, and their tracks can be laid on road surfaces. I remember that there were trams here when I first arrived in Australia in 1962.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: In 1962?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Yes, I think they were taken out in the following year. There was trouble keeping the connectors on the powerlines. I recall the difficulty experienced at the corner of Liverpool and George streets in trying to put them back together. Trams are still in Melbourne and San Francisco and they are being brought back to cities such as Birmingham and Mexico City, where new systems have been built. All over the world, particularly in Europe, there is a move to light rail systems that do not pollute and cause problems for people such as myself who have difficulty breathing in the city.

I am pleased that light rail is finally making a return, and I hope that something can be done about the building on the Randwick corridor. I would imagine that a future government will have to buy that building and demolish it because of the lack of action by the previous Minister, which cost New South Wales several hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted money. Light rail can provide an exceptionally flexible mode of public transport which has a fairly high capacity at a relatively low cost. I therefore welcome this legislation. I hope that in the future there will be further light rail in the city of Sydney and that the diesel buses will be removed, as their particulate emissions cause terrible problems for people. We need to turn the clock back to the days when the public transport system was effective and essentially non-polluting, at least in the city.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.47]: As a Green, I am very happy to support the Transport Administration Amendment (Light Rail) Bill. Light rail has been on the Green agenda for a long time as it is of undisputed environmental benefit to a city such as Sydney. Light rail is very cost-effective and features as a world trend in cities of advanced planning. I have had first-hand experience with light rail in Amsterdam, where it has since the early 1970s been an effective tool in rapid and safe transport. Light rail is a very effective, safe and people-friendly form of transport. It is important that light rail is viewed as an ideal direction for the Government to follow, particularly with today's knowledge of the massive pollution problems involved with the expansion of private vehicle transport throughout the city.

Light rail has to be seen as a step towards finding a solution to Australia's failure to adhere to greenhouse gas targets. I also refer to the eastern suburbs rail corridor at Allison Road, Randwick, where building development has taken place. An absolutely essential corridor for light rail that could have transported significant numbers of people to the University of New South Wales, the racecourse, Centennial Park and Coogee has been put in jeopardy because of bad planning decisions by past governments and the Randwick council. The approaching Olympics provide an opportunity and an obligation to examine possibilities for light rail.

I was appalled to have to be part of non-violent demonstrations which occurred outside the Randwick interchange. It was clear then that continued construction of the light rail corridor would not be viable, given the developments set in train by the council and the previous Government. Unless we want a one-way loop that goes around the development, which would be exceedingly poor planning, such construction would be laughable. There may be an opportunity for construction of the light rail in the future, but I have my doubts. It is a tragedy for the eastern suburbs - one of the most intensively developed residential areas in the city - to have light rail hamstrung in that way; it would have been an absolutely fantastic project for people living in the area.

The light rail bill appears to have two purposes. The first is project specific and relates to the infrastructure currently being constructed in the Sydney central business district. The contract for this work was signed by the previous Government, and has been the subject of considerable disquiet within the ministry and the Department of Transport. My understanding is that the 1988 review of the Transport Administration Act neglected to include a reference to light rail or tram planning, construction or operation. As a result, the contract entered into by the Minister, Bruce Baird, allowed the use of road infrastructure for purposes which were not identified in the enabling legislation of either the Roads and Traffic Authority or the Department of Transport.

Page 6774

Attempts to rectify the problems stemming from omissions in the Transport Administration Act 1988 in relation to this project have been legislatively complex and unwieldy. The issues of third-party accident and property rights are still unresolved, and must be properly rectified prior to the commencement of the system's operations early next year. The first purpose of the light rail bill is intended to clarify these and other unresolved issues for that project. The second purpose of the bill is generic to light rail as a transport mode and is intended to enable the development of additional infrastructure.

The bill should identify the processes and organisations responsible for the planning, construction and operation of light rail infrastructure throughout New South Wales. The bill provides the Public Transport Advisory Council - PTAC - with the power and responsibility to prepare for New South Wales a light rail plan that includes consideration of proposed routes, integration with other transport systems and interchanges, and any future relevant administrative arrangements. To facilitate the preparation of the light rail plan, the PTAC is able to engage in public consultation, discussion and negotiation with other government agencies.

The implementation and ultimate effectiveness of light rail depend upon its ability to compete with other infrastructure providers and users. The government agency responsible for the development of light rail systems must negotiate with the RTA for arterial road easements and with the State Rail Authority for interchange connections. State Transit's bus operations directly compete with and, over a period of time and in certain locations, may be replaced by light rail. The task of providing light rail involves complex negotiations with other powerful and competitive agencies, and will fail if it is not properly supported by an appropriate administrative structure.

In order to negotiate and compete effectively with other transport, infrastructure and service providers, the administrative unit responsible for light rail should be similarly restructured. For this reason, I sincerely hope that one of the outcomes of the light rail plan of Public Transport Advisory Council will be a recommendation to establish a light rail authority, establishing a clearly defined advocate for light rail transit services for the people of New South Wales. The Department of Transport has come to the conclusion that all light rail projects would result in a significant impact on the environment and would therefore require environmental impact statements.

That conclusion completely contradicts the recent finding of the Land and Environment Court that the widening and upgrading of Abbott Road to accommodate increased traffic from the M2 construction did not constitute a significant environmental impact and therefore could be dealt with through the review of environmental factors, the REF process. The trend towards increased use of REFs is a worrying one. If the Department of Transport has decided that all light rail construction will have a significant environmental impact, the bill should explicitly require environmental impact statements for all light rail.

I take this opportunity to raise the important matter of the misuse of REFs and bring to the attention of the Government the opportunities which are provided to unconscionable developers through their manipulation. I seek the Minister's commitment to the implementation of the environmental impact assessment process. A primary benefit of light rail construction lies in its ability to utilise existing road infrastructure for effective mass transit. I understand that the State Transit Authority has had significant difficulties in acquiring dedicated bus transit lanes from the Roads and Traffic Authority, even on a temporary basis. I believe it is fair to expect the RTA's attention to requests for easements on arterial roads to range from unhelpful to hostile.

I congratulate the Minister and his Government on their amendments to the legislation, which seek to overcome the problems which any proponent of light rail is bound to encounter in its dealings with the modern-day pillager of our cities, the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Government has the Greens' full support for any endeavours which bring that rogue organisation under control. The Greens are mindful of Bob Carr's commitments to curb the powers of the RTA and make it more accountable to the people of New South Wales through a comprehensive review and restructuring process. The current Premier, when Leader of the Opposition, stated in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 July 1994 that "a Coalition victory at next year's election means the RTA engineers having their heads".

When it was in opposition Labor acknowledged the importance of making the RTA accountable to the community by bringing it under the control of a board with representation from environment and community interests. Once in government, it has ignored community concerns about the RTA's activities and appears no different to its predecessor in government. In conclusion, I support the bill and its amendments. I congratulate the Minister for Transport and support his efforts to use the existing road infrastructure for effective mass transit. I ask the Premier to enlighten the people of New South Wales, who elected him in March 1995, about the Government's intention in relation to the commencement of its promised comprehensive review and restructuring of the Roads and Traffic Authority.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.56], in reply: I thank honourable members who have spoken in support of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 6775