- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 5 May 2004
Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 39 of 53
| Next Item »
Page: 8304
Second Reading
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [4.42 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In December last year I announced an historic agreement between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments for the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] to lease the New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley lines. The bill provides the framework by which management of the New South Wales rail network will be integrated with the rest of the national rail network. It is the last major step in the realignment of the national rail network. A detailed history of the effort by the Commonwealth to create a national integrated rail network from the mismatched State rail networks was outlined when the bill was introduced in the other place. The most recent effort, which has led to this agreement, commenced in 1997 with the establishment of the ARTC as a Corporations Law company with its shares wholly owned by the Commonwealth.
Initially the ARTC took on railways then owned by the Commonwealth before taking a lease of the interstate lines in Victoria. Subsequently it entered into an arrangement to provide access for operators to the interstate lines in Western Australia. It is important to note that the network is under the control of the Commonwealth through the ARTC. Over the past five years growth in general freight in the New South Wales rail network has been in excess of 30 per cent. In my view this is a strong endorsement of the policies put in place by this Government for competition on our rail network. It is a tangible demonstration of the Government's strategies for separation: the introduction of private sector competition into freight rail operations has delivered genuine gains for the community.
However, to sustain this successive growth requires a change in the underlying management structures of the rail freight network. The long-term freight transport trend is away from traditional hinterland to port patterns towards interstate flows. The Commonwealth is best placed to provide the national context required to effectively manage this evolving transport pattern. Similarly, the Commonwealth holds prime responsibility for funding of the national highway system. It is appropriate that it also take prime financial responsibility for the national rail system. The Government believes that integration of the New South Wales rail network into the national rail network is logical and a long overdue public policy.
The three key features of the agreement with the Commonwealth and the ARTC are a 60-year lease to the ARTC for the non-metropolitan interstate main lines in the Hunter Valley, management by the ARTC of the New South Wales country regional network, and the majority of country rail staff remaining employees of New South Wales. To provide for the continued integrated management of the rural New South Wales network, it has been agreed that the country regional network—that is, branch lines and non-interstate main lines—will be managed by the ARTC on behalf of New South Wales. This network will be managed through an alliance contract between New South Wales and the ARTC. The Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] will retain ownership and New South Wales will retain funding responsibility for the lines.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: For the branch lines?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, for these lines. We are talking about the residual network.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I just wanted to get it on the record.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is more than on the record: it is in the legislation and in contracts, so do not worry about what I say.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So you will look after the branch lines. Thank you.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Once again, it is on the record, in legislation and in contracts.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You will look after the branch lines?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We will look after those lines better than those opposite are looking after the seats over there. When I was sitting over there during the last division I noticed that all the leather has been ripped up. An alliance board will be established to oversee these lines through the setting of key performance indicators. The alliance board will have a key role in overseeing the peak performance indicators for the residual network, and a strategic role in developing key performance indicators for the lease network. The Labor Council will be represented on the alliance board. The majority of country infrastructure maintenance and train control staff are to remain employees of the RIC, and the State Rail Authority [SRA] will continue under an ARTC management. The ARTC will directly employ its New South Wales management administrative staff, and train control managers, infrastructure team managers and leaders. It is proposed that the ARTC lease and management arrangements will be taken up this year.
The proposed arrangements have a number of other significant elements. The Sydney metropolitan freight lines will be leased to the ARTC on similar terms to the lease of the interstate and Hunter Valley lines. It is proposed that this will commence on or after 1 January 2006 and conclude on the same date as the interstate lease. The ARTC is to undertake a five-year infrastructure investment program of $818 million on the New South Wales network, plus a further $52 million on the Albury-Melbourne line in Victoria. This will include a contribution by New South Wales of $61.9 million. The ARTC will construct a new railway line, the Southern Sydney freight line, within the existing rail corridor from Sefton Park near Chullora to Macarthur. This will allow segregation of freight and long-distance passenger services from electric train services in this corridor, and provide a dedicated freight track connecting the interstate rail network with Port Botany.
It is important to note that the ARTC has agreed to be bound by the New South Wales passenger priority principles. New South Wales will have the right to resume network control in cases of gross and persistent non-adherence by the ARTC to these obligations. The ARTC management of the network will be subject to New South Wales rail safety accreditation by the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator in accordance with the New South Wales Rail Safety Act. The bill makes it clear that the ARTC is responsible for rail safety on the leased network and security of staff. The ARTC securing its accreditation is a condition precedent of the lease and other arrangements commencing.
Clear and achievable performance indicators are being established for performance under the contracts, including track performance and infrastructure conditions. The track indicators will be directed at precluding a run-down of the asset. There have been extensive discussions with the Commonwealth to ensure that New South Wales retains control in the event that the Commonwealth seeks to change the equity structure of the ARTC. It has been agreed that the Commonwealth will consult with New South Wales in the event that it wishes to dispose of any of its interests in the ARTC. New South Wales will have an option to re-acquire the ARTC's leasehold interests in the New South Wales rail network.
An important aspect of the implementation of the arrangement is the protection of the interests of current New South Wales employees. The original ARTC proposal was assessed by New South Wales against a set of 29 criteria that were developed in consultation with the unions. During the assessment of the proposal by New South Wales, an employee reference group was established to advise the unions of progress and to provide a forum for feedback. In July 2003 the Labor Council of New South Wales was involved in, and signed off on, 11 key objectives against which alternative models were considered to arrive at a preferred model. Following extensive consultation with the unions and the Labor Council, it was agreed between New South Wales and the ARTC that most employees would remain employees of the New South Wales Government instead of being transferred. That will allow staff to retain the benefits of being New South Wales public sector employees. The ARTC will be recruiting approximately 300 staff who will be direct employees of the ARTC. A transfer package has been put in place for country staff who resign from a New South Wales rail entity to take up employment with the ARTC. No-one will be forced to apply for a position within the ARTC.
The Government's policy of no forced redundancies applies to work force changes resulting from the ARTC lease. I have written to unions to assure them of this important safeguard. A joint consultative group of the Labor Council and the unions has been established to provide a formal consultative mechanism during implementation of the ARTC arrangements. As foreshadowed when this bill was introduced in the other place, the Government has undertaken further consultation with the unions, and flowing from that the Government proposes to move a number of amendments to the original bill. The most important change is that New South Wales will retain responsibility for occupational health and safety and workers compensation for seconded staff. That will provide an extra layer of protection for workers' interests. For the purposes of occupational health and safety, the legislation will provide that both the New South Wales rail authority and the ARTC will be bound as if they are the employer.
In regard to workers compensation, the legislation will make it clear that the RIC and the State Rail Authority [SRA] will continue to be responsible for the insurance for seconded workers and for all personal injury claims. A regulation-making power has been retained to ensure that the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act will be able to be appropriately applied in the workplace. Other amendments arising from consultation with the unions will provide greater certainty for the application of current industrial agreements, will place bounds around the personal information of seconded workers that may be disclosed to the ARTC, will provide for the protection of a seconded worker when disciplinary action is being considered by the RIC or the SRA, will provide for guidelines to be made by the Public Employment Office in regard to policies relating to the personal circumstances of individuals who will be seconded, will provide for the application of a salary maintenance policy and disciplinary action against seconded workers by the RIC and the SRA, and will require a secondment to be for a specified period.
The Government is committed to a number of additional policy matters raised by a number of unions and the Labor Council of New South Wales, but it was not appropriate to deal with them in the legislation. I have written to the unions and I have advised them of the Government's commitment to these important issues. The RIC will be allowed to competitively bid for work that the ARTC seeks to contract out. The Government agrees that when meaningful work can be found for surplus staff, it will be provided. Accordingly, the Government is happy to agree to this arrangement. I understand that the ARTC has indicated that it will welcome bids from the RIC. As previously noted, the Government has agreed that the Labor Council will be represented on the alliance board that will be established to oversee the country regional network. The unions have requested that the board be established in advance of the commencement of contractual arrangements. . The Government will take steps to establish the board as soon as possible.
The Government will protect the core remuneration of workers. The Government will be giving an assurance that no worker will be forced to accept a secondment to the ARTC at a lower grade than the worker currently holds. Comprehensive arrangements have been put in place to preserve the existing conditions and entitlements of staff. For infrastructure maintenance and train control employees who are working on the ARTC-managed lines, existing enterprise bargaining agreements [EBAs] and other industrial instruments will govern conditions of employment. Future EBAs will be negotiated with the RIC and the SRA in consultation with the ARTC. Staff who take up positions with the ARTC will have a range of options in dealing with their entitlements. Their options are set out in a comprehensive transfer package. Details of the transfer package are being communicated through their work force representatives and directly to staff through briefing and information packs. Country employees who resign from the RIC or the SRA to take up employment with the ARTC will have a three-year employment guarantee.
The principal purpose of the bill is to give effect to the arrangements I have outlined. The bill will enable rail authorities to enter into each of the key agreements with the ARTC to which I have already referred. It also makes a number of consequential changes to facilitate the agreement, including adjustments to the functions and objectives of the authorities and amendment to the Conveyancing Act. The bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that New South Wales policy objectives are met. The ARTC is required to maintain the linear continuity of the lease network. Its powers to deal with land and infrastructure have been limited, including its ability to grant certain financial securities. These safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the ARTC will not be able to withdraw services from the network.
There can be no indirect transfer of the network to a private sector entity. The bill precludes the ARTC from becoming involved in above-rail operations in New South Wales to ensure that rail freight operations remain separate from track ownership. New South Wales recognises that with such a long-term arrangement, it is important to provide flexibility to deal with changes in circumstances. The bill provides clarity of the ability of New South Wales to acquire the ARTC's interests in the leased area by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act. This will allow New South Wales to regain control of part of the leased network if there is a policy need to do so at some time in the future—for example, if New South Wales wants to extend electrified rail commuter operations. In the absence of legislative change, the ARTC would not be subject to planning regulations. The bill creates a framework for the application of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to the ARTC to avoid a regulatory vacuum.
The Government intends to move a number of regulatory amendments to clarify the application of schedule 6A of the Transport Administration Act. The schedule provides a statutory mechanism to simplify rights of access by rail entities to each other's land and infrastructure. The amendments have arisen in the context of finalising lease negotiations with the ARTC. The substantive changes relate to the ARTC's right to extend or expand infrastructure, location of rail infrastructure on other rail infrastructure, and the application of regulations with respect to access to land. I understand that the Opposition will support the Government's amendments.
I digress to express my appreciation of the role undertaken in this process by the Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson. I acknowledge that it was his drive and commitment that made this agreement a reality. I know from talking to him that it was a very difficult process. He has a genuine vision of how the rail network should operate. We may have political differences on many matters—
The Hon. John Ryan: You are too right wing.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: He is too left wing for me. The Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, has a genuine commitment to a national public policy outcome for rail operations that is in the best interests of the nation. I am pleased to support him in that objective. We have been able to discuss frankly many difficult issues and resolve them during numerous telephone conversations.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The previous Minister for Transport could not.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let us not politicise this issue. I am sure that members opposite appreciate the significance of this historical agreement. It was difficult to reach agreement, but the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, and I have built up a personal rapport that has enabled us to agree to a number of issues on trust. In dealing with matters of this nature, it is necessary to be able to do so. I trust him in terms of his commitment to rail and its strategic role within the nation's transport framework. I extend to him and our respective officers my appreciation of the co-operative spirit in which this intergovernmental co-ordination was achieved. It was interesting to see staffers from intense political environments co-operating across the political divide to reach a sensible public policy outcome.
The Hon. John Ryan: It's rare for you, but it's common for us.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is very uncommon for the Hon. John Ryan because he has never put up any sensible positions on anything. There has been co-operation at the bureaucratic level. I thank the bureaucrats, both at State and national levels, who have acted professionally to achieve the difficult outcomes. This is an important and historic step towards the revitalisation of rail as a national key strategic transport mode.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.00 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition in debate on the Transport Administration Amendment (New south Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill. Other Opposition members will contribute to this debate to put a personal perspective from the areas of the State they represent. Members should be encouraged to participate in this debate because, as the Minister for Transport Services has said, this is a significant piece of legislation for New South Wales and the entire nation. As to the long-term national interest, this legislation is as significant for the transport sector as was the standardisation of rail gauges during the twentieth century. The Minister made reference to the legislation being long overdue. Without politicising this issue, I must state on the record that such an approach was made to the Government in 2002, possibly earlier, but it fell on deaf ears. I am sure that the Minister will not interject whilst I have the opportunity to make this observation.
It must be put on the record that this significant and long overdue legislation, which operates in the national interest, came up against a brick wall in the form of Carl Scully, the former Minister for Transport. He was inflexible and not prepared to move on this issue. If we took a vote, I am sure that some of the Government members would agree that this long overdue legislation should have been acted on earlier. We have never been told why the former Minister for Transport, now the Minister for Roads, vehemently opposed this legislation, or whether his opposition continues today. I would be interested to know whether he has changed his mind or whether he still holds the same view. Be that as it may, this proposed legislation is significant and I look forward to its passage through Parliament.
At the time of Federation, all those years ago, the need for standardisation was spelt out. Today we are considering a logical outcome for the rail sector in this State and Australia as a whole. The agreement will end more than 150 years of division and shortsightedness in the management of Australian railways. Additionally, this legislation is timely, given the particular circumstances that exist in rural and regional rail infrastructure in New South Wales. This legislation is all about growth in the transport market. I was fortunate recently to receive briefings on this proposed legislation, which brought home to me the significance of this bill. I was told of the difference between rail usage on the east coast and elsewhere in Australia. For example, in the Nullarbor rail constitutes about 80 per cent of total freight coming across from Western Australia. When compared to the north and south market on the east coast, which is less than 20 per cent, it gives a stark picture of the need for improvement and the inclusion of both road and rail in the process, as this legislation will provide for years to come.
I am a very strong supporter of road transport. This legislation enhances both road and rail modes of transport because they work closely together. I am aware that some members are concerned that the Government is pushing a great deal more transport onto our roads, such as the transport of commuters in New South Wales, particularly on the North Coast. As to road freight, this legislation encourages the growth of the transport market along the north-south corridor, provides opportunities and enhances competition.
The intention of the legislation is to provide for the wholly Australian Government-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] to lease for 60 years the New South Wales interstate rail track and Hunter Valley rail freight corridors. The ARTC will also manage on behalf of New South Wales the remaining country network, which includes branch lines and non-interstate main lines. I note that the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments reached an agreement on implementing this process last December. It is anticipated that the handover will occur on 1 July. This legislation will bring the last major element of Australia's interstate rail system under the management of a single agency. The ARTC process will create a national standard gauge rail network, linking Australia's capital cities and major ports. It will create a one-stop shop for rail access from Perth right around to the Queensland border and will assist in building a competitive rail industry on a commercially viable basis, adding value to the national logistics system.
In general, the legislation will allow for New South Wales rail agencies to lease for 60 years rail lines predominately used for freight or country passenger lines used to transport freight and other non-electrified passenger services; enable agreements to be entered into to allow for the ARTC to construct additional freight lines and facilities and also for the secondment of staff to the ARTC; enable the lease, licence and sale of the ARTC of associated rail infrastructure facilities; confer on the ARTC the rights and responsibilities of a rail infrastructure owner in respect of lease or licensed rail lines; enable the New South Wales rail agencies to enter an agreement for ARTC to manage other lines used to predominately transport freight or country rail lines used for freight and other non-electric passenger services; and make other consequential amendments and provisions of a savings and transitional nature.
There are significant benefits for our rail infrastructure as a result of the ARTC process, particularly for rural and regional New South Wales. This is important when we consider the current appalling state of rail infrastructure, particularly outside the greater Sydney area. Honourable members would be aware that the Government's failure to make appropriate investment in the rolling stock and infrastructure since 1995, particularly in regard to the ongoing improvement and modernisation of the network, has led to the crisis situation we face today. Since the March 2003 State election numerous rail safety issues have been exposed. Initially it was the controversial decision not to close the Menangle Bridge prior to the State election. Circumstances of this decision ultimately became the subject of an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation. The revelations relating to these decisions were followed closely by the release of a series of reports on rail safety and maintenance issues, which exposed a raft of serious problems within the rail system that must now be addressed.
Last year's Auditor-General's financial report on the Rail Infrastructure Corporation revealed a maintenance backlog as at 30 June 2003 of at least $479 million. While the ARTC process is predominately concerned with improving the freight capacity of the rail network, passenger rail services in New South Wales will also greatly benefit, which is something this Government should pay particular attention to. After all, we have already seen the Minister's first attempt at wiping out country rail services: the XPT running between Casino and Murwillumbah, which will cease operation from 16 May. Thanks to the Premier and the Minister it will go. The Opposition has proposed an inquiry to be conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 to examine in detail this outrageous decision, which breaches the Minister's own 12-month moratorium on cutting CountryLink rail services. I fully acknowledge the support for this inquiry of a number of crossbench members in this House.
I reiterate the Coalition's commitment to restore this rail link when it attains office in 2007. Last week a matter that was made clear to us—and it was evident as a result of the overwhelming North Coast support for the Murwillumbah protest train—was that local communities in rural and regional New South Wales support their CountryLink rail services. I established that fact after having visited many regional communities that had a CountryLink rail service—either an XPT or Xplorer train service—from October to December last year. I pay tribute to my Coalition colleagues for their efforts in this regard—the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Robyn Parker, the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who have the support of their constituents on the North Coast and in the Hunter region.
I acknowledge that members on the crossbenches took the time to travel on the protest train to support their constituents, in particular, those on the North Coast. For once the Minister should pay attention to the wishes of the community by ensuring the retention and improvement of CountryLink passenger train services. Bearing in mind the significant investment in rail infrastructure in rural and regional New South Wales that the ARTC arrangements will bring about, we will be faced with a far more viable arrangement for CountryLink rail services, in particular as New South Wales passenger priority principles will continue to apply across the New South Wales network, including lines leased to or managed by the ARTC.
Aside from obvious flow-on benefits for passenger rail services in New South Wales, the key area that will benefit is obviously the transportation of freight. For the first time rail's natural competitive advantage over long-haul distances will be able to be properly utilised, in particular, on the north-south rail corridor running along Australia's east coast, with New South Wales obviously benefiting directly. The ARTC's management of the east-west rail corridor to Perth has already increased rail's market share of land-based freight to 80 per cent—a factor to which I have already alluded. Unfortunately, the current situation on the north-south transport corridor is nowhere near as impressive. Anyone travelling on the Hume Highway, the Pacific Highway, or the New England Highway would be well aware of the difficulties being experienced by motorists in this State. They are confronted not by trains or by rail freight but by heavy vehicles and B-doubles. The concerns that have been expressed by the farming community will result in the closure of branch lines in the future.
Under this Government, heavy vehicle freight moving along the north-south corridor will increase exponentially over the next few years. As at March this year, rail held only a 19 per cent share of the Sydney to Brisbane freight market and only an 11 per cent share of the Sydney to Melbourne freight market. The rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane, which covers much of New South Wales, has only a 21 per cent share of the freight market. That means that more pressure is placed on the New South Wales road network.
The Minister continues to focus on the economic bottom line, but he should start looking at the social and environmental impacts of what he is trying to achieve in New South Wales. Improving the quality of rail transport for freight has the benefit of mitigating the otherwise unsustainable long-term pressure that will be placed on the capacity of the State's road network. Our cities and natural environment will benefit from a greater proportion of freight utilising the rail network. Given that the volume of freight being transported is expected to double over the next 20 years or so, that is an important issue. With that in mind, I turn to the funding package for New South Wales.
Over the next five years of ARTC management more than $870 million will be injected into the rail system, predominantly in regional areas, to bring it into line with what New South Wales and Australia need for the twenty-first century. Significantly, there will be funding injections of $180 million for a new southern access route for freight trains through south-western Sydney. That will entail building a non-electrified rail route from Macarthur through to Chullora, separating freight and main line passenger traffic from the urban CityRail electrified system and giving CityRail enhanced capacity and reliability. I am reliably informed that, with the passage of this legislation and with money starting to flow into the Government's coffers, we can expect to see some positive outcomes in about 2½ years time.
There will also be a funding injection of $145 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network consisting of the track at Port Waratah, Newcastle, to Werris Creek and Ulan via Muswellbrook—an issue to which I will refer in a few moments. The Hon. Robyn Parker, as a member who hails from the Hunter Valley, will also refer to that aspect. New South Wales coal exporters in particular will gain real access charges of around 20 per cent and increased capacity from that measure. I am talking about improvements in services and reliability but we are starting to see access savings for the coal industry in the Hunter Valley—yet another win for the Hunter Valley.
There will be a funding injection of $170 million for the main south line from Macarthur to Albury, and the Murrumbidgee Bridge at Wagga Wagga will be replaced. There will be a funding injection of $123 million for the North Coast line from Maitland to the Queensland border, including the long overdue replacement of the 1920s era signalling systems. There will also be a funding injection of $54.1 million to upgrade the line between Cootamundra and Werris Creek. All the timber bridges on that line will be replaced. That is particularly welcome news in light of the Carr Government's appalling failure to invest in rail infrastructure. All those members who use the country rail network would welcome that announcement.
All rail operators in New South Wales, whether passenger or freight, will benefit from the better track, bridges and signalling systems that will be provided via the ARTC lease. The New South Wales Labor Government has failed to fund rail infrastructure in this State. This package will go some way towards addressing those problems. However, some considerable distance is yet to be covered—an issue to which I will allude later in my presentation. Access to the full length of the interstate main line from Perth to the Queensland border will be negotiable through the one organisation—the ARTC. Importantly, the proportion of freight being carried by rail will be set to increase. Exporters in regional New South Wales will in due course find rail transport a much more attractive option and they will benefit from greater choice, competition and reduced transport costs.
I have spoken to many people who rely on our existing rail network who are calling out for competition. They are certainly calling out for choice. I have been assured by those in the ARTC that this proposal will be a massive leap forward in that direction. Over time we will see more choice and greater opportunities for competitiveness in the system. At the end of the day, that will benefit our primary producers. We must expedite the passage of this legislation. These infrastructure improvements will see rail transit times from Melbourne to Brisbane via New South Wales slashed by 6½ hours. Rail transit times between Sydney and Melbourne will be cut by three hours and between Sydney and Brisbane by 3½ hours—an outstanding improvement.
I reiterate that the ARTC is prohibited from operating passenger or freight train services. It leases and manages the tracks and it is not competing against existing train operators. This is all about enhancing what we currently have and improving freight movements throughout the country. The ARTC process, which is fully supported by the Federal Government, will go a long way towards redressing the disgraceful neglect of rail infrastructure in New South Wales by the current State Government. If action had not been taken via this ARTC lease, rewards from the efficiencies being achieved in other sectors of the economy would have dissipated as a result of the inadequacies in our transport infrastructure—a major Achilles heel for the Carr Government, as it knows only too well.
One of the reasons the New South Wales Government is fully supportive of the ARTC process is that, by coincidence, it will resolve many of the rail infrastructure problems that it has not addressed in the past. Is it simply a case of the Government knowing that eventually it would move toward the ARTC? That is why there has been such a concerted effort over the past few years not to put any money into infrastructure.
It is a little like selling a second-hand car. You do not have rust cut out, modify the engine, or improve the car before you sell it. You wait until it is on its last legs, save your money and prepare to spend it elsewhere. I believe that is exactly what has happened in this case. The Government has allowed rail infrastructure to slide. Thank goodness the ARTC has come to the party and we will finally see some improvements in our rail infrastructure. I commend the Federal Coalition Government for its role in this process. It has again shown leadership. The Minister for Transport Services would do well to take stock of the Federal Government's achievements not only in this sector but in many portfolio areas throughout the nation.
Affected country employees of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation or State Rail Authority are to remain New South Wales Government employees unless they wish to apply for a position with the ARTC. Most will be seconded to positions with the ARTC rather than be transferred to it. I understand that the Minister intends to resolve the outstanding issues he has with the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. In light of the Minister's background in the rail industry, there is delicious irony in his driving these reforms when his counterparts walked away from them completely. It is quite interesting. But we cannot forget that when Ministers and senior bureaucrats were questioned in parliamentary committee hearings about potential job losses as a result of these reforms—
The Hon. Christine Robertson: Nothing positive ever comes out of those committees.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank Labor members for their encouragement. It was not Government members but Opposition members who put questions about job losses—reasonable questions that had been raised by the union movement—to the bureaucrats and to the Government. It fell to us to do it yet again. The voice of the worker in this debate was once again also that of the New South Wales Opposition. Harpo Marx and his friends up the back of the Chamber sat like silent hand puppets when we asked those questions. Honourable members may remember Vince Graham telling the committee—I will paraphrase him—that he would be dragged kicking and screaming from the committee before he would answer questions about job losses.
The Hon. Christine Robertson: The cross-examination.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We asked reasonable questions.
The Hon. Michael Costa: He called you McCarthy, if I remember rightly.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: We hear again from one of the Hollywood Ten. Be that as it may, Opposition members put on the record reasonable questions about job security but the Minister for Transport Services pulled the doona down over the answers to ensure that there was not one leak from the Government.
The Hon. Michael Costa: What is a doona?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is the big quilt that the Minister uses to smother the voice of everyone who works with him. Opposition members asked the difficult questions and it is great to say that we played a part in helping the work force and providing some job security and certainty. Until that time the Government had refused to answer any questions whatsoever.
Additionally, I note that the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator remains responsible for the approval of engineering and maintenance standards on the rail network in New South Wales. The State Government must certainly answer several more questions about this process. I am sure that, true to form, it will ignore them because they are reasonable questions, such as what structures are in place to protect workers. Other questions are at the forefront of our minds as we consider the legislation this evening.
It is estimated that removing funding responsibility for the main rail lines in New South Wales will save the State Government approximately $200 million per year in investment. Where will that money go? The material that was distributed details clearly where money will be spent under the ARTC proposal. As I said, $175 million will be spent on the main south line and $54 million will go to the Cootamundra to Werris Creek line, and all timber bridges on that section of track will be replaced. The ARTC has indicated where it wants to spend money; it has been quite up-front about it. It is now up to the Government to tell the people of New South Wales where it will spend the $200 million it is saving as a result of this partnership and these reforms. We want an ironclad guarantee that the money will not be spirited away and swallowed by the other black holes in the State Government budget. According to the Auditor-General, there is a $470 million maintenance backlog. Obviously a certain amount of that work will soon be assumed by the ARTC. But what about the $200 million that this mob opposite will save as a result of these reforms? We need to know where that money will go. That is only fair.
I have looked at the rail maps and identified a big void between Sydney and the Hunter, which is of particular concern to the Hon. Robyn Parker and me. Exploration is under way by BHP Billiton, which is heading towards securing a 20-year or 30-year lease for the rights to export-quality underground coal worth more than $20 billion. Why has the Government decided to exclude the ARTC from upgrading rail infrastructure in that area? Will we have the opportunity to revisit this issue and ensure that $20 billion worth of coal does not leave Wyong and the Central Coast on heavy vehicles? The roads on the Central Coast are saturated with traffic now. We want some certainty from the Government about this issue.
We want to know that when the lease is granted the rail line will be extended to Wyong. We want the savings that we have been promised in this legislation to be hypothecated to the new BHP Billiton lease in Wyong shire. We want more jobs and benefits in Wyong. There is no doubt about that. However, we do not want our local roads to be destroyed by coal-laden B-doubles, which impact adversely on the environment. We certainly do not want to see serious or fatal motor vehicle accidents caused by an increase in heavy vehicle movements. One can only begin to imagine the thousands upon thousands of truck movements required if we are talking about extracting $20 billion worth of coal from the valleys of Wyong shire. The Government must certainly answer some big questions in that regard.
The ARTC is injecting $872 million under this agreement to upgrade State infrastructure. The Minister is more than happy to put his hand out and say, "Yes, we'll take that $872 million." But look at the list. That money is going to much-needed maintenance upgrades—whether they are improvements to bridges, signals or safety. We need that money to make our system better. But if $872 million worth of work will result from this deal, what work remains to be done to make the entire system equally safe and reliable? The Minister is more than happy to take the money but I guarantee that he will not stand up in this Chamber and spell out exactly the millions of dollars—perhaps billions of dollars—of work that is required throughout the entire system. Standards must be consistent across the ARTC, commuter and branch lines. We must know exactly how much work remains to be done.
The other bone of contention is the Casino to Murwillumbah line, and we cannot move forward in this debate unless I touch on that matter. The Minister needs to explain why that line is included in the alliance agreement to be managed by the ARTC when the Government has earmarked it to be non-operational. Why would the Government allow the ARTC to manage something that will be non-operational? If the Government is going to allow the system to be run down and will not maintain it, why is the ARTC being asked to manage it? I am sure the Minister has a reasonable answer. He is once again rolling his eyes. The public needs to know the answers to those questions because there has been a lack of information provided by the Government in the lead-up to this process. Like the rail network, it is all interlinked. As representatives of the people of Casino to Murwillumbah and the Tweed, we want to know why this line has been included in the alliance agreement when RailCorp has earmarked it to cease operating and will not put any more money into it.
The $145 million upgrade of the Hunter Valley network will be well received. The business community there is screaming for help. I point out that the overall success of the Hunter Valley relies on small businesses in the main street of Newcastle or Charlestown. The $145 million from the ARTC will go a long way to assist a beleaguered Hunter Valley that for so long has been treated as second-class. The Government has treated the people in that area worse than it has treated the people in the Southern Highlands. There is no doubt that the rail network will be improved, and we will then have to look at the ability to move bulk haulage off the port and onto the sea.
On last count there were approximately 50 ships sitting off the Port of Newcastle waiting to dock. We should not for one moment think that this proposal will see the end to the Christmas tree lights off the Port of Newcastle every night. It will rectify the transportation delays in rail and will move the bottleneck up to the coal loader. That will need some leadership and commitment from both private enterprise and the Government.
In the past the Government has been asked questions about the preparedness of the private sector to go through the problems with the Government. The private sector has been prepared to put money into the process. Up until now when we have asked questions, rather than get the certainty that the Hunter Valley business community wants, we get a vitriolic attack from the Minister for Transport Services. It is a shame that the Minister has not gone beyond his old bovver-boy days at the Labor Council. Be that as it may, the Opposition will continue to put these matters on the record and hopefully they will be rectified at some stage.
The $145 million for the Hunter Valley includes more than $14 million for track strengthening and remediation work, $4 million for bridge strengthening work, and more than $66 million, which is crucial, for capacity enhancement through the elimination of identified congested locations which I referred to earlier. The congestion issues will be rectified but until there is some leadership from this Government to rectify the problems on the coal loader, the Government is only going part of the way.
The Hon. Michael Costa: We don't own the coal loader. Hasn't anybody told you that?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister said, "We don't own the coal loader." He is the Minister for the Hunter, and the Hunter wants an advocate, not an apologist. The Hunter does not want somebody who says there is nothing he can do; it wants somebody in the Hunter Valley who will knock heads together and start getting things happening.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: He is a lower House wannabe!
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Once he knifes John Price and moves into Maitland, or gets rid of Kerry Hickey, he will fulfil his dream. But right now the Minister is crushing the dreams of the Hunter. The people of the Hunter want a fighter, not a wimp. They have a Minister who is the best dressed. When was someone from the Hunter in the top 10 best-dressed people in Sydney? The Minister is from Sydney. He is not the best-dressed person in the Hunter, but in Sydney. One can see the Minister sipping cappuccino in Glebe, but the people of the Hunter want a fighter. All they have is this follicly challenged fashion statement who is not prepared to knock heads together and make this coal loader proposal work. For goodness sake, surely someone on the Government side has a bit of passion about the Hunter Valley. We will support anyone for Minister who makes the coal loader work.
Right now we have this burden opposite, this albatross around our neck in the Hunter, and we are stuck with him until such time as we get someone else. But we are only three years away from rectification of that problem as well. That is another bottleneck that we will get rid of but at a different stage. We will not need the support of the ARTC. The Minister is destroying the Hunter Valley by himself. I am pleased to have participated in this debate. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation that will bring major benefits to the rail sector in New South Wales. I conclude by saying: please give us somebody decent for the Hunter Valley.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.36 p.m.]: I support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill on behalf of the people in the Hunter and as a resident of the Hunter. At the outset I congratulate the Federal Coalition Government and Minister Anderson on their leadership, because this legislation is long overdue. I know without that determined effort this would not have happened. People in the Hunter and the coal industry—the Hunter relies on the coal industry—have been calling for some assistance for a long time. In 1999 Port Waratah Coal Services shareholders invested $330 million for a third coal loader to take Newcastle's port capacity to 89 million tonnes per annum. I know that that is a private organisation but it needs leadership from government.
The Hon. Michael Costa: They want to nationalise it!
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: No, they need leadership from government to assist them. In 1999 representatives of the coal industry wrote to Carl Scully, in his capacity as Minister for Transport Services, asking for support for upgrading rail infrastructure—a request that was totally ignored. As a result, the coal industry in the Hunter, and in fact in New South Wales, has suffered. In 1999 the industry advised the Government that the current rail network was approaching full capacity, and that it was seeking initiatives that would address the capacity shortfalls. It asked for help and called for some assistance. While the Government ostensibly supported the request, it did little, and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation did not spend the capital required to upgrade the infrastructure despite industry's request.
The coal industry even indicated to the Government that it was prepared to underwrite the capital expenditure to the tune of millions of dollars. As well as a capital works program to reduce the bottlenecks, the initiatives included reducing the average train cycle times, as well as an improved communications system between Port Waratah Coal Services, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, and the rail freight carrier Pacific National. Those initiatives, aimed at extracting maximum network efficiencies from the rail system, were ignored by the Government, rail maintenance was neglected, and the constraints on capacity continue. I have spoken previously about the queue of ships— something in excess of 50 ships at a time—that one can count off the coast at Newcastle. They call it Carr's navy.
We have even heard in this House about the consequences, not only for the coal industry but also recently for the fishing industry, of those ships sitting offshore. During the budget estimates proceedings last year I asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Hon. Kerry Hickey, about coal loading and shipping in Newcastle and the demurrage costs that many companies are facing as they wait on the horizon off Newcastle. He denied responsibility for the issue, and told me it was the responsibility of the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter, the Hon. Michael Costa. On 18 September I asked Minister Costa whether he had taken any action to address those reports.
The Hon. Michael Costa: No. We do not have any shares in the coal loader.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Of course, the coal loader is a private enterprise, but if the coal cannot be transported on the rail network and onto ships, it cannot be shipped or exported. That was just the usual arrogant response from the Minister. Despite the Minister's insistence that the problem does not lie solely with the coal loader, lower coal prices and a high Australian dollar are factors in plunging profits for our coal industry. The Managing Director of Rio Tinto and Coal and Allied was quoted in the Newcastle Herald of 21 February this year as saying:
The bottom line is the problem rests with rail infrastructure. We are reaping the whirlwind for a lack of money spent on rail infrastructure over the past decade.
Thank goodness the Federal Government is doing something about this matter and we are dealing with this legislation today. The ships are costing the coal industry and New South Wales valuable export revenue. The current queue of ships off the port of Newcastle is costing the coal industry something like $100 million per annum in demurrage costs. It is suppressing its growth and job opportunities in the Hunter. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the ability of the industry to increase its capacity if we could only get the coal down the rail line and load it.
ARTC's leasing of the interstate and Hunter Valley networks will seek to put an end to years of mismanagement and inadequacies in the Hunter rail corridor by the New South Wales State Government. ARTC will be investing more than $870 million in the rail system in regional areas, which includes specified funding of $145 million to upgrade the Hunter Valley network, which includes $67 million to eliminate bottlenecks. Although ownership of the Hunter Valley rail corridors will remain with New South Wales, the ARTC will have full responsibility for these lines, including investment decisions and train control. The coal industry and other users of the Hunter Valley rail network will benefit from this lease arrangement as infrastructure investment programs include the removal of conflict between coal movements and interstate and regional commuter traffic on the main line.
It is no secret that improvements in the performance of the Hunter coal chain is vital to allow the region's coal suppliers to compete against growing coal exporters in China and Indonesia. Coal exports through Newcastle have increased from around 50 million tonnes per annum in 1996 to more than 70 million tonnes at present. Our mining operations in and around the Hunter Valley are leaders in efficiency and best practice when it comes to the extraction of coal. This makes the New South Wales coal industry one of the most efficient in the world, but in the Hunter it is being let down time and again by the New South Wales Government and its failure to address rail infrastructure problems. The mining sector contributes not only to the Hunter economy but also to the New South Wales economy. It generates 15,000 jobs and contributes approximately $220 million per year in the form of mining revenue. The upper Hunter in particular has seen a huge growth in the industry over the past 20 years. Coal has a total production value of more than $5 billion per year, and it is the State's major export earner by volume and by value.
Production cuts of up to 6 per cent for coal companies were forecast early this year as companies looked at implementing quota systems in order to cut the shipping queue—because they could not get the coal transported by rail as they were unable to have it loaded. Fortunately, in the end, this was not necessary, due to a sudden increase in export coal prices. This would have been a restraint on free trade and a loss of profit for the coal suppliers. In addition, the Government plans to change the way it taxes the coal industry by replacing the flat-rate royalties with a system based on coal prices. We welcome ARTC's leasing of the rail corridor. Finally there are solutions to an ongoing and worsening problem.
I encourage honourable members to support this legislation, not only for the people of the Hunter but for everyone in New South Wales. Again I commend the Federal Government for its initiative. I am really pleased that the New South Wales Government and Minister Costa have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to this agreement, which finally will address the rail infrastructure needs of the Hunter. I support the bill.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.56 p.m.]: The Democrats support this bill and we are very pleased that finally the change is to occur. Of course, different railways and different rail gauges have bedevilled Australia since Federation, which was about the time when governments should have started to solve these problems. But more than a century later we are still putting the pieces together. That goes to show how slowly things happen. The historic agreement of September 2003 was entered into to set up a framework for the integration of the management of the New South Wales rail network with the rest of the national rail network. I understand, but am not certain, that this was at the suggestion in 1974 of Gough Whitlam, who was very farsighted in wanting to abolish the States and regionalise government, which is Australian Democrat policy.
Under the agreement contained in the bill, the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] will lease the New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley freight corridors and assume the management of New South Wales country branch lines. I believe that the ARTC has done quite a good job of handling things. It has recognised the need for a national network, and it has certainly modernised the rail network across the Indian Pacific route. It might be noted that the Glenbrook train disaster was a result of poor integration of the State Rail network and the Indian Pacific, a matter that obviously had to be addressed.
I must confess that I cannot recall the chronology of this Government's series of rail disasters, and I have told this story a number of times, so I apologise to non-Government members who have heard it before. Minister Carl Scully was trying to persuade the crossbenchers not to have an inquiry into rail safety because, he said, it was not necessary. He then said that he would get all the rail people together. Of course, at the time rail was split into four different authorities, including the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. The representatives of all those authorities gathered in room 1136 and the question was: Should the rail authority heads sit at the table? Should their minders sit at the table with them? Or should the politicians sit at the table?
There was a great deal of juggling, politeness and so on, and finally the Minister said, "Here they all are, crossbenchers. Ask anything you like. We do not need an inquiry; we are open about all this." I asked, "Who is responsible for rail safety in New South Wales?" There was a lot of clearing of throats and discussion to the effect, "I think you should take the question," to which the response was, "No, perhaps you should take that question," and, further, "No, I think that might be your question." But, no, it was not. That was the sort of discussion round the table. It demonstrated pretty clearly why rail accidents were happening: the economic theorists had said that people should be made to compete for the use of the track, that a few telephone calls could be made and the trains would not crash, and so on.
It was pretty clear that rail maintenance was being done by a different group to the group that owned the track, a different group was running the rolling stock and so on. Although there were problems co-ordinating a fairly antiquated network that had been neglected for such a long time, it was very clear that the rather daring market mechanisms used by the economists were not going to succeed. It has now been put back together, which is what Christie recommended. We need a single operator to run the show and a huge injection of funds to try to make up for the many decades of neglect. No-one has had a visionary look at New South Wales rail since Bradfield's time.
The Hon. Michael Costa: There is now.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: We hope that the situation will improve with the ARTC taking it on. About 18 months ago when I spoke to David Marchant by chance he pointed out that various segments of the line needed to be upgraded. The ARTC web site listed the likely benefits and cost of upgrades for anyone who was interested in reading them. It was a step in the right direction. It is one thing to build a highly symbolic line from Alice Springs to Darwin, where it is postulated less than 1 per cent of Australia's freight will end up, when nothing is being done to upgrade the line from Sydney to Melbourne. If it is true that it is cost effective to use rail only when containers can be stacked two high, but overhead power lines and tunnels cannot accommodate trains at that height, there is a problem. I understand that because western New South Wales has very few tunnels and no overhead electric lines for the trains, it can take trains stacked two containers high. The problem has to be addressed.
In the 1920s the line around Mittagong was slowed down to improve gradients for the less powerful trains, but that needs to be re-addressed. The Sydney to Melbourne line, on which the bulk of freight by weight is moved in Australia, must be improved from a rail perspective. It should be roll-on and roll-off. The convenience of road transport is that once a truck is loaded at the source it can go straight to its destination without double handling. Some weight must be taken off the roads. Prime movers should roll onto the train and go up the highway far more cheaply, then roll off or have their loads taken off in smaller units through an effective loading and unloading mechanism. I understand that is world's best practice, and that is what we need in Australia if rail transport is to compete with road transport. But it will be achieved only with a considerable injection of capital, and intelligent and savvy management in the market. The inland route from Melbourne to Brisbane, which requires a new line from North Star to Goondiwindi, or thereabouts, would be a great boost for western New South Wales and could lead to a decentralisation policy that would help western New South Wales.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Have you been to North Star, Ace? Do you know where North Star is?
The Hon. Christine Robertson: I think we need a 10-carriage train at North Star.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It should be considered much more intelligently than the developer-driven policy that this Government is following. Obviously, we should jockey on that and we should have a plan. It would be nice if people, rather than making sneering remarks in the Chamber, were to make suggestions about what could be done in that area. It is very important that the ARTC stay in public ownership. I wonder whether the lease should be renegotiated should the ownership ever change. It would be extremely foolish to privatise a national rail network, but when Sydney airport is privatised on the basis that it is competing with Brisbane airport—as far-fetched an argument as one could possibly mount because people do not decide whether to go to Brisbane or Sydney on the quality of the airport when they are probably leaving Sydney or Brisbane so far as most of the traffic is concerned because it is actually an end destination irrespective of its airport—it is basically a grab for cash.
The automotive industry bought the bus and rail companies then ran them down to a poor service. Far fewer people travel on public transport now than they did in the 1930s, despite a massive increase in the population. Not only should it be in public ownership but it should also be intelligently run in a market framework, which is why a public corporation must be created and kept in public hands, and why it must perform in a market fashion. That is the challenge for David Marchant and the team at ARTC. The way this Government runs things down is extremely worrying. Recently I intended to go from Murwillumbah to Sydney, but the Qantas plane was cancelled, which meant that I was unable to get to the initial boarding point. I joined the train somewhat later, but the protest to save the train was over. The line from Casino to Murwillumbah is a branch line, which will not be helped by this agreement.
It might be noted that the Beattie Government is improving the line to Robina and has promised to take it to Coolangatta, which is right on the border—about 30 kilometres. The corridor along the Gold Coast is extending itself as a tourist destination, but if more industry follows that area may become a line of national significance carrying freight as well as large passenger volumes. Rather than being a branch line with neglected infrastructure because, according to the Government, infrastructure maintenance cannot be justified because the line carries few trains with even fewer people at inconvenient hours, it could become a major link between New South Wales and Queensland. It could revitalise the whole of northern New South Wales, which is already growing rapidly. One would hope that the ARTC would be interested in that line and its potential. From a Queensland point of view it is almost suburban because the corridor of development extends from Brisbane right through to the Gold Coast. That is not the case on the New South Wales side of the border, but it could be if it had a decent rail network.
It is worrying that these branch lines are left in the hands of this Government, which has showed so little willingness to consider repairs to even its main lines. I have spoken to people in Armidale who are trying to maintain their train service. Beyond Armidale a group of people interested in historic rail have found the Government very obstructive. It will not sell them disused rail motors, instead they are left in sidings where they are destroyed. An attempt was made to put some point blockers between their shed and the main track to try to discourage them from repairing a rail motor. The Government has been quite unhelpful, even for those wanting to run historic rail on some of these branch lines. One can only wonder why, in these types of cases, light small rail motors could not run on rail that has weight restrictions.
The Government is not thinking intelligently about its rail infrastructure. I am worried about leaving the responsibility for these residual lines with the State Government. People are concerned about the line from Shellharbour to Nowra, which is the end of the electrified line, and the Murwillumbah to Casino line. Farmers are concerned about the lines that carry wheat or grain from western New South Wales to the bigger centres. The councils in that area are also very concerned about the alternative use of B-doubles. Heavy vehicles damage local roads. The repair of roads and bridges is a major non-recoverable expense for local authorities.
When the Western Distributor was first mooted I tried very hard to have a rail easement incorporated in the centre of the freeway. The Government responded with recalcitrance and would not agree to that suggestion, even though the project involved excision of land from a national park. It should be noted that the confluence of road and rail in expressways is being used very successfully in Perth, Western Australia. I was disappointed that the New South Wales Government was unwilling to consider my proposal. The cancellation of agreements to buy more rolling stock has exacerbated the problems. There was a delay in purchasing the Olympian trains, which were subsequently replaced by the Millennium trains—of course, the mismanagement of the Millennium trains is now legendary. I note today's newspaper report that fewer Millennium trains are being bought and that a cheaper version might be substituted.
The delay in the provision of rolling stock resulted in the inability of this Government to provide an adequate service from Parramatta to Campbelltown. Due to the poor rail service between those two places, people have resorted to using their motor vehicles, thereby exacerbating traffic congestion. In turn, that has created political pressure for construction of the western orbital. Although construction of the western orbital may have been necessary for other reasons, the need for an alternative road route may not have been so great if the Government had applied some intelligence to the purchase of rolling stock for the Parramatta to Campbelltown line.
The Government learned nothing from having to build the western orbital and making Sydney people as dependent upon their cars as the people in Los Angeles. The Government persisted in rejecting the incorporation of a rail easement in major arterial roadways such as the western orbital. If that is not bad enough, the previous Coalition Government sold large tracts of land for development along Old Northern Road, which suited developers who wanted to sell large plots, instead of developing smaller plots along the Richmond line. As a result, instead of having high-density development along the Richmond rail line, very low-density development was permitted in the north-western sector of Sydney. The Government now claims that the land has been developed without provision having been made for a rail easement and that the population of the area has become too diverse to reverse its decision. Consequently, that area of Sydney is absolutely gridlocked, which is an absolute disgrace.
Instead of making a commitment to address that appalling situation, the Government ceased the construction of the rail link between Parramatta to Chatswood at Epping. That was extremely foolish. If the Government had continued the rail link just a small distance to Epping the western line trains could have travelled up the Carlingford line, and the trains from Parramatta and Liverpool could have travelled through Granville, up the Carlingford line, and across from Carlingford to Epping, and then further on to Chatswood. The Government claimed that there was not much demand for that route, but of course there would be no demand for a route that does not exist! Only people who enjoy driving extremely slowly over very long distances when there is no quick alternative would take that route, so naturally there is no demand. However, once an improved rail passenger service becomes available, inevitably there will be an increase in public support for that service. There really should be a rail line from Epping to Castle Hill and up to the Round Corner area. The sooner an easement is built and improved passenger rail services commence the better off people will be.
However, this Government is in hunkered-down mode. When tunnelling was undertaken between Macquarie University and Epping the set-up costs were quite minimal. However, the Government did not want to continue. It would have been simpler to drill the tunnel, set up the stations and have a rail service working, but the Government has no vision. Instead, it is shutting down all rail construction, which is a disgrace. I am concerned about that. While I am pleased to note that the ARTC is taking over major lines of national significance, particularly in relation to freight, I am most concerned that branch lines are being left in the hands of this Government, which does not properly manage rail services. One wonders what commitment this Government will make to maintaining proper services and repairs on branch lines. If the Government claims that people will be no worse off and that the branch lines are safe, I need only refer to a letter I received from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales Inc. to disprove that assertion. Yesterday the association wrote to the Premier, Bob Carr, and stated:
Dear Premier
The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW Inc (CPSA), has expressed a vote of no confidence in the NSW Transport Minister, the Hon Mr Michael Costa MLC. Minister Costa has misled our Association by informing us in October last year that CountryLink services would not be cut for twelve months. We now find that to be untrue.
A Minister in your Government has an obligation and an expectation from the people of NSW that they will at all times tell the truth. Through his actions Minister Costa has made it difficult for our Association to respect him and the position he holds as Minister for Transport.
We don't have confidence in Mr Costa and would be pleased if you replaced him as the NSW Minister for Transport.
Yours sincerely
Bill Whiley
State Secretary
The New South Wales Government's level of commitment to rail services is a cause of considerable worry to the community. I note that on the map of arrangements to be made concerning the ARTC, there is a big gap between Macarthur and Woodville Junction, which is near Newcastle. All of that area is under State Government control. It will require a large amount of money to construct a rapid route between Sydney and Newcastle. Some tunnels are shown on the map and they will be constructed along the edge of mountainous territory. It would be quite expensive to have a dedicated freight line in such terrain. The next logical question is: When will the ARTC undertake the project? I have not checked whether the ARTC has costed the project on its web site, but one would hope that the project will be undertaken and that the people of the Newcastle area will receive a good rail network. The concern associated with this Government having control over rail lines in this State is that it has a propensity to replace rail services with buses, as suggested in relation to the Murwillumbah to Casino line.
The Government seems to be totally beholden to the Honeysuckle Development Corporation in relation to the Newcastle development, and those developers obviously are eager for a rail easement to be constructed. It is a very simple trick to buy a supermarket site for next to nothing very close to Broadmeadow and to operate a bus exchange to ensure that lots of people patronise the supermarket. At a later stage when the Government has either been persuaded to sell the easement or give it to the developers, a good profit may be made. The spectacle of the Premier attending question time dressed in a toga has been mentioned, while people pay a fortune to listen to twaddle. It is worrying that developers pay huge amounts to a Government that is threatening to cease Newcastle rail services. The people of Newcastle enjoy the convenience of rail. They need a line that goes into the centre of the city and beyond so that kids are able to take their surfboards to the beach. That has been threatened by the short-sightedness of this Government, which seems to have little commitment to the provision of rail services.
Private bus operators have had a dream run in New South Wales. The Auditor-General discovered that school subsidies were being paid on the basis of the number of students requiring a bus service, without any control over whether the students used the bus service or any check on the distances that were travelled. Private school students were driving past public schools and enjoying travel over long distances, free of charge. Unconstrained subsidies were being paid to private bus companies. Private bus companies chose long routes so they could qualify for subsidies on the basis of distances that students were required to travel. The Auditor-General pointed out that the system was poorly managed. If that is not bad enough, a couple of years ago Westbus sold out to the National Bus Company of the United Kingdom at the same time the Euro 2 standards for diesel commenced operation.
At that time I asked a question in this House as to whether Western Sydney bus lines would be compelled to adopt the Euro standard. There was some delay. In the meantime, the National Bus Company was importing buses from Britain that did not meet the Euro 2 standard and could not be used in the United Kingdom—but they were being used in New South Wales! Of course, that was very bad for New South Wales in relation to increasing pollution. Westbus was owned by Mr Bosnjak, but I understand that he sold the business. He is effectively now a lobbyist for the bus transport industry, and I wonder whether he is in receipt of performance bonuses. The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales Inc. is very concerned about that also. The association sent another letter to the Premier on 5 May 2004, which stated:
The State Executive of Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association of NSW Inc (CPSA) views the appointment of Mr Jim Bosnjak and Mr Keith Todd to the State Transit Authority's board as unethical and a major conflict of interest, as they represent the interests of private bus companies.
These State branch lines are effectively being managed by the ARTC, and the Government has a severe conflict of interest in who it appoints to the board of the State Transit Authority. It is a matter of considerable concern. The House should be askance, and the appointment should be examined and perhaps rescinded.
The overall thrust of the bill is to give the administration of rail in New South Wales to the ARTC, with reasonable safeguards put in place for employees. The Legislation Review Committee dealt with some privacy aspects. I want to put in a plug for the committee. Although the committee's assessment process of the new legislation is not as detailed as I requested at the time of its creation, it has done a good job and noted problems in the legislation. The Government has flagged some amendments, which I assume relate to workers compensation and the personal rights of workers. This is necessary and historic legislation. Australia has needed it for 102 years, since Federation. I am concerned about the State Government's plans for the branch lines. I wish the ARTC well in its endeavours. As a person who is interested in transport in Australia, I hope that more freight will be transported by rail and that commuters will use rail more widely. We should attempt to stop the urban sprawl of our cities and become less oil dependent, which will become a huge problem later in this century.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.11 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill. I do not believe this is the opportune time to discuss all the problems associated with the rail system in New South Wales, as some speakers have done. The previous speaker, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, seemed to be debating a no confidence motion in the Minister for Transport Services.
The Hon. Michael Costa: They have done that before!
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I know. Together with previous speakers, I congratulate the Premier and the Minister for Transport Services on this initiative. In particular, I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson, who, obviously with the support of the Prime Minister, entered into this agreement between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government. It is a very good development. Hopefully, with the same level of co-operative spirit, the State and Commonwealth governments will enter into further agreements in other areas in the future.
The Christian Democratic Party strongly supports the use of our rail system. Previous speakers have said that they favour the rail transport system. We believe that the State should have a modern, efficient, safe railway system and we will do all we can to support such a system. We believe that there will be increasing major problems if more and more truck trains are allowed on our highways. I do a great deal of driving and I have noted that the inside lane on most of our highways is badly damaged by huge trucks. If you want a comfortable drive you have to keep away from the inside lane because of all the bumps and holes. The roads are falling to pieces under the tremendous pressure of the trucks. I live in Gerroa, so I know that the many coal trucks on the highway are putting a lot of pressure on the community.
The Christian Democratic Party is pleased with this agreement, which was announced last September, in which the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] leases New South Wales interstate and Hunter Valley lines. It has taken many years to reach this agreement. Previous speakers have referred to the original primitive rail system in Australia, even having three separate track gauges adopted by the States. Each State was sovereign and did not take any interest in a national track gauge. If it had not been for the initiative of Sir Henry Parkes and others Australia could have ended up like Europe with separate nations rather than forming a Commonwealth under Federation. New South Wales and Victoria would have continued as sovereign States and would have developed as separate nations with national borders, customs charges and other problems. This agreement is part of the positive development of our nation as one Commonwealth, but still recognising the important role that the States play in the arrangement.
I do not support any argument that the States should be abolished. That would mean only more centralised power in Canberra. Democracy works better with checks and balances between the Commonwealth, the States and local government. I favour devolution of power rather than centralisation of power. There are times when co-operation can occur, as with the national railway system. In those cases, we must look at it from a national, not a State, point of view. This bill is very much in the national interest and we are pleased to support it. We know that there will be some practical problems. We can feel behind-the-scenes tension relating to the unions and employment issues. Perhaps the Minister, with his experience in trade union activity, believes he has developed a system that will work in harmonious relationship. We hope so.
The Hon. Michael Costa: It's called Heaven.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: You pray every morning. Pursuant to the agreement that has been made between New South Wales and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, staff will be seconded, rather than transferred, to the ARTC. That was done for practical reasons so that staff would retain the benefits of New South Wales public sector employees, who I assume have better benefits. Some people hold the view that the Commonwealth, through its industrial legislation and other policies, is not as sympathetic to employees and workers as the New South Wales Labor Government would be. I can understand the rationale behind the system the Government is setting up, but it may be sowing seeds for problems down the track.
The transfer to the ARTC of the 60-year lease will involve a heavy commitment of expenditure by the ARTC. I understand that under the contract it has agreed to spend $820 million on the railway lines in the first six years. The lines certainly need it. I assume that the Commonwealth Government, with its budget, will not have a problem finding $820 million. It certainly is a large amount of money. I am pleased that the Commonwealth, through the ARTC, will provide that funding so that we will have safer, more efficient and upgraded railway tracks in this State. We are very pleased to support this bill. The amendments provided by the Government relate to matters dealing with employment, work conditions and industrial awards. I do not believe we can support the bill and vote against the amendments. Therefore, we will support the amendments when they are moved in Committee.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.20 p.m.]: I support this important bill—probably the most significant legislation to be introduced in this Chamber in recent times. When the Deputy Prime Minister, The Nationals Federal Leader, John Anderson, signed the agreement with the Hon. Michael Costa he said:
The agreement ends 150 years of fragmentation and myopia in the management of Australia's railways. We have finally overcome the confusion that began in the 1850s when the colonies decided to build their railways on different gauges. For the first time one organisation will be able to sell track access to train operators over the full length of the interstate main line from Perth to the Queensland border.
The ARTC's investment program will bring the New South Wales, interstate and Hunter Valley railway networks into the twenty-first century with better track, better signalling and reduced transit times. Rail share in the north-south market is less than 20 per cent compared to about 80 per cent across the Nullarbor. The agreement will make rail more competitive and reduce transport costs. It is an essential part of our efforts to prepare for the dramatic growth in freight traffic that is forecast over the next 20 years.
I congratulate John Anderson and the Hon. Michael Costa on reaching that agreement. I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of the Chief Executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC], David Marchant. This is an historic agreement. The good news in relation to this agreement is that, from a New South Wales perspective, it will free up around $200 million a year for the State Government to spend on other rail infrastructure across New South Wales.
Over the past few weeks we have been debating the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah branch line. The people of the North Coast find it hard to understand why, with the freeing up of this money as a result of the establishment of this important ARTC intrastate network involving the Hunter Valley area, that $200 million is not being used to prop up the Murwillumbah to Casino railway service, which costs about $5 million a year to run and carries more than 300,000 passengers every year. However, those are questions to be asked at another time. I acknowledge the vision of John Anderson on this important issue. As the Minister pointed out, from 1997 he has been driving this important issue of national infrastructure policy. He is determined, along with other Government representatives, to get as much freight as possible off our roads and onto the rail network. It is sensible public policy with which no-one would argue.
The exciting thing from a New South Wales perspective is that hopefully we will see better management of our own State Rail system with the freeing up of some of the money that does not now have to be spent on ARTC tracks. It is worth mentioning that while the intrastate line and areas around the Hunter region are the responsibility of the ARTC, branch lines across New South Wales are still in the ownership of State Rail. I place on the record that State Rail is responsible for funding the infrastructure and for the maintenance of those lines. It is a complicated arrangement but, when everything is boiled down, it will not be all that difficult to manage. It is with pleasure that I support the Transport Administration Amendment (New South Wales and Commonwealth Rail Agreement) Bill.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.23 p.m.]: The Greens support the concept of a national rail freight network. Getting freight onto rail is one of the Greens most fundamental commitments. We do not want dangerous deteriorating roads dominated by trucks. We do not want the truck industry's air and noise pollution and its greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want landfills full of truck tyres. The rail system should be seen as a solution to our freight worries, not as a problem to be solved. But the Carr Government's starting point is that rail is a problem. Rather than assuming that rail should be fully resourced, the Carr Government does nothing more than argue about whether or not to fund it, how much to fund it, and how to fund it.
The Hon. Michael Costa: That is the budget process.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection and remind him that this Government should be about the provision of public services. It should not be about cost cutting and looking to make profits; it should be about doing its job. Let us compare that funding with funding for the road network. Vast sums are simply thrown at roads without any concern as to whether they pay for themselves or whether they are crucial or marginal. As the Hon. Michael Costa used to say when he was a union activist in the rail industry, the road lobby has the Government's ear while rail gets the cold shoulder. In the April 1987 edition of the Railway Digest Mr Costa wrote:
There is a need for an effective rail lobby to counter the activities of the road lobby.
The road lobby, which includes the major road transport companies and State Government departments, have lobbied very effectively for increased road construction.
Increased road construction, coupled with cutbacks in public transport, are the aims of the road lobby.
The road lobby is a well-organised, highly financed and effective lobby.
The Hon. Michael Egan: When was transport ever cut back?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is what the Government is doing now. If the Treasurer listens to my speech, I will explain it to him. The Government is cutting back public transport enormously. The Treasurer is washing his hands of branch lines. He is washing his hands of all these freight responsibilities because he has his debt obsession.
The Hon. Michael Egan: We have allocated additional funds for rail capital works.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: While the Treasurer and I are having a chat I would like to say to him that one day I think I will be saying, "I miss you" when Minister Costa is in his job. Can the Treasurer see that happening?
The Hon. Michael Egan: I have a feeling that neither you nor I will be either in this place or alive when that happens.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Really? I do not know what the Treasurer has planned for us.
The Hon. Michael Egan: I am not telling you what I am doing, but I am not leaving.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: So the rumours are not true? Is the Treasurer not going in July and doing a swap?
The Hon. Michael Egan: You are the one who is spreading the rumours.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not the one who is spreading the rumours; I just said that the rumours were going around. I wanted to establish whether or not the Treasurer was going to be here for a long time. I refer again to the letter that was written by Mr Costa. He stated:
The road lobby is a well organised, highly financed and effective lobby.
The letter goes on to call for concerted action in the defence of public transport. It concludes:
Rail is more cost-effective than road. It will be the major task of the emerging rail lobby to make this known to the community in general.
Mr Costa actually wrote, "Rail is more cost-effective than road." Does he no longer believe that, or has the road lobby rolled him in Cabinet? Is that what happens? Nothing much has changed since that letter was written. Mr Costa, however, has changed. Since joining the Carr Government he has stopped calling for a more organised rail lobby. Now he has become a central player in the Carr Government's sorry saga of railway neglect. It is always a moment for sad reflection to look back at the Carr Government's 1998 blueprint, which goes under the misnomer of "Action for Public Transport 2010". It is full of promises to build and upgrade roads. Almost all of those promises have since been met.
It is also full of promises to maintain and upgrade rail. Almost none of those promises have been met. If the Greens were in government, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation would be the new Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. It would not have to come round with a begging bowl. It would not have to be the poor cousin getting cut to the bone while the Roads and Traffic Authority enjoys unfettered access to Treasury. But Labor is in government and, before that, the Coalition was in government. Between the pair of them the results have been decades of neglect of rail infrastructure. That is something that they cannot deny, and I am sure we will hear no interjections from either one on that point.
The Hon. Michael Egan: What did you say?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I said that between the pair of them—Labor and the Coalition—there have been decades of neglect of rail infrastructure. Then I said that I am sure we will hear no interjections from either one on that point.
The Hon. Michael Egan: That is nonsense.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not nonsense. When did the Treasurer last catch a train?
The Hon. Michael Egan: A couple of weeks ago.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Was it running on time? Did he go out to the country? What about a CountryLink service, changing from a train-based service?
The Hon. Michael Egan: I went to Cronulla.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is good.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Either it was two minutes late or my watch was two minutes late.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is wonderful. It would be good if people across the State could get similar train services. Gradually rural and regional rail has stagnated. The neglect has been criminal and it has brought the system slowly to its knees. Under Minister Michael Costa we are entering a new phase. Neglect and disrepair are giving way to active steps to completely dismantle the rail network.
The rationale seems to be that the system is now so broken that it cannot be fixed. But the only thing standing between today's rail system and a world-class network is the Carr Government's total lack of vision.
The Hon. Michael Costa: It is money. Have you ever heard of that?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Minister has the money. It is a matter of where he chooses to spend it. The Government has no vision.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Does the member know much are we spending on rail?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is about where the Government is spending the money.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Do you know how much we are spending?
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Hansard is having great difficulty trying to record this conversation.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer can give us the total amount. How much is the Government spending?
The Hon. Michael Egan: This year we will put another $300 million into passenger rail services on top of the $2.5 billion made available for capital works.
The Hon. Michael Costa: And the $1.6 billion in subsidies.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer was after the total expenditure. Can either the Treasurer or the Minister give us that total?
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, can you advise the House who has the call as there seems to be a private conversation going on between several members?
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind members that it is very difficult for anyone to hear when more than one member is talking. It is also very difficult for Hansard to record what is being said in the House. I remind members that one member has been given the call, and I ask other members to refrain from interjecting.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: As I said, the Carr Government has no vision for CountryLink except cutting services. It has no vision for rural branch lines except to leave them to rot and to push freight onto roads that cannot cope at the expense of councils that cannot pay for road repairs. Its vision for freight rail is a warped and convoluted lease deal with its old enemies the Liberal and National parties. This brings us to the bill before the House.
The Hon. Michael Egan: They are our old enemies and will continue to be our enemies.
The Hon. Michael Costa: But the Greens are the new enemies.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: How do you rank your enemies? The Government is unwilling to spend the necessary funds on upgrading freight lines and has decided to fob it off to the Federal level. We are told that we need this deal because it will give us a nationally co-ordinated rail freight network. The Greens agree that Australia needs a nationally co-ordinated rail freight network but we will not achieve that through this particular deal in this particular bill.
The Carr Government has demonstrated why this deal is unnecessary. Under the deal New South Wales through the Rail Infrastructure Corporation [RIC] will keep control of the branch lines. The ARTC will just manage the branch lines. The Minister's staff told us that the Government was giving the branch lines to the ARTC to manage so that there would be a seamless freight system within New South Wales and around the nation as a whole. In other words, the same operator would maintain the track no matter whether it was a main line or a branch line, making it easier for rail freight carriers to run on the tracks. But if a management contract with the ARTC will suffice for the branch lines, why will it not also suffice for the main lines? Why do we need a lease deal for the main lines when a management contract with the ARTC will, by the Minister's own admission, achieve exactly the same result? I hope the Minister will enlighten us about that.
There is a simple reason for pursuing a lease on the main lines: money. The Government does not want to spend the money that is required to keep the track up to scratch. I am glad that the Treasurer is in the Chamber to share these problems with us. The Government has left the track to languish and now it wants to get out of funding upgrades by passing the buck to the Commonwealth. But there is a catch. Opting for a lease deal means handing over workers to the ARTC and the Commonwealth industrial relations regime. Because the Government wants to save a fistful of dollars it is prepared to sacrifice rural and regional jobs—up to one third of the rail work force. The Government is prepared to put employment conditions and worker entitlements at risk. I will return to this issue later as it is a matter of great concern.
The Government is prepared to let go of local expertise and knowledge and switch to maintenance gangs that are mobile, outsourced and downsized. This hardly inspires confidence that the quality of infrastructure will be maintained. This bill gives us an extraordinary insight into the Government's thinking. This Government thinks job security is not important. It thinks corporate knowledge and expertise is not important and all that matters is passing an $800 million package of rail upgrades to the Commonwealth. All that is important is debt repayment and a triple-A credit rating. But guess what, Treasurer Egan? The ARTC will fund much of the upgrade work through debt. That is common commercial practice, particularly when funding capital investment. Treasurer Egan likes to portray himself as a clever economic operator, but his obsession with debt reduction is the opposite of how sensible entrepreneurs approach their business.
The Hon. Michael Egan: General government debt is what I abhor. Income-earning debt is something that I quite readily embrace.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: This is one area in which the Government should have gone into debt to look after our infrastructure.
The Hon. Michael Costa: If you borrow to fund recurrent expenditure, you go broke. Do you understand that? That is what happened in the Soviet Union.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection, which shows why we will have problems when he is Treasurer.
The Hon. Michael Egan: You won't see it.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Treasurer has again assured me that he and I will never see Mr Costa become Treasurer. The Carr Government's aversion to debt and its obvious contempt for railways as an essential public service and an alternative to roads has led us to this bizarre and complex bill, which authorises an equally bizarre and complex lease deal. The Treasurer and Minister for Transport Services sit down with their bankers and bean counters in Governor Macquarie Tower and their minds are on cutting debt and cutting costs. But there is one important cost that this Labor Government is ignoring: the human cost.
This month I visited the Grafton rail depot and spoke to workers there about what the ARTC deal means for them. I found it a most moving and concerning meeting. The men I spoke to have between them 197 years of experience on the railways. Every one of them spoke of the distress, the uncertainty and the hardships that this deal is causing them. One manager has been to see them and they have received a sheaf of vague emails about the ARTC proposal. But this has not addressed the workers' fundamental concerns. They do not believe the ARTC and the RIC are being honest and up front with them. The uncertainty is getting to them. One worker is on stress leave and others will probably have to leave town. Above all, workers simply do not know what is going on. They do not know what their future will be.
Some workers will be offered ARTC secondment, involving different jobs at different locations with different conditions. Failing that, there is a job with the RIC—most likely in a different location with different conditions—or there is voluntary redundancy. What a choice! It is not one that people in this place would tolerate and it is not a choice that these workers should have to make. In a moment worthy of Yes Minister one of my staff was told that there were jobs for everybody. But when he asked about those who were surplus to ARTC requirements—and we understand that there will be many—he was told that they had not been forced out of a job because they had taken voluntary redundancy. So a voluntary redundancy is apparently not counted as a lost job! These rail workers are not being given real choices. For a worker in a place such as Grafton voluntary redundancy could well mean a long spell of unemployment—certainly longer than the payout will last.
Last week I also met rail workers in Bathurst, where I again heard a tale of confusion and uncertainty. I call on Minister Costa to visit Grafton, Bathurst or any rail workshop or RIC office in rural New South Wales and listen to what these workers are saying. Look them in the eye and tell them the real reason they are losing their jobs. The Minister should come clean with the workers. The real reason is that the Minister is hell bent on choking off funding for the rail network as part of his application to be Treasurer. One gets the feeling that this is the last stage of Costa's Treasury apprenticeship.
The Hon. Michael Egan: He does not have the gravitas or the dress style to be Treasurer of New South Wales. He has the economic and financial credentials, but that's about it.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Treasurer and the member of the Opposition about the ability of the Minister for Transport Services to do the job. The Government will tell us that the reason it has come to this complex arrangement with the ARTC, apart from saving money, is that it keeps ARTC-employed workers under the New South Wales industrial relations system. This is a worthy aim. We share the concerns of the Australian Labor Party about the Commonwealth industrial relations framework, but this aim could have been more easily achieved by applying the branch line model to the main lines. The ARTC could be the manager, not an owner. The lease deal uses the idea of secondment to attempt to keep ARTC's New South Wales work force under the New South Wales industrial relations umbrella. This causes all sorts of complexity, and the Government may have failed in its aim.
In proposed sections 88X, 88Y and 88ZA the Government attempts to make the ARTC liable for workers compensation claims under New South Wales legislation. But the ARTC is a Commonwealth agency, and the Greens are unable to see how the ARTC can be subject to New South Wales workers compensation legislation. The scenario arising from that is that an injured rail worker could make a claim against the ARTC and be told that the ARTC is not responsible because it is protected by Commonwealth law. So the worker then turns to the State regime and finds that the bill we are discussing today removes any liability from the RIC. In other words, nobody is liable, and the injured worker receives no compensation. I understand that the Government may be moving amendments to resolve that problem, and in that regard the Greens congratulate the Government on working with the relevant unions. I request that the Minister respond to this concern in his speech in reply.
But the unions still have many issues outstanding. They want the RIC named as preferred tenderer. That will help to protect rural and regional rail jobs. They want an alliance board comprising the ARTC, the unions and the Government to oversee the changeover. They want clarification of ARTC conditions for seconded workers, and they want all industrial instrumentalities and policies to cover seconded workers. They want to know whether their members will work under the conditions they do now with regard to superannuation, privacy and drug and alcohol testing. They also want to know whether the current enterprise bargaining agreement [EBA] will apply to seconded workers, and what will happen when future EBAs are negotiated.
The Greens support the concerns of the union movement. Many union members have told us that the proposed contracting regime will hurt jobs and compromise infrastructure quality. The focus of the ARTC on cutting corners and contracting out will make it impossible for it to carry out all the work for which it is responsible. Its job-shedding plans are completely unrealistic—and even the ARTC seems to be waking up to this. Originally the ARTC said it would need 202 workers. I understand that this has now increased to 340 workers. I do not believe that number will be enough. Meanwhile, the ARTC has not met its target of filling all its positions by the end of April. Until recently, it had not even started interviewing for team managers. Can it really be ready by 1 July, or even 1 October?
So the ARTC is not ready. The contract is not signed. The union is not happy. There is no rush to bring in legislation. There clearly is time for more consultation, but meaningful consultation is dangerous for this Minister; he cannot handle it and that is why he has to control things and get this bill through as soon as possible. I return to the question: What is this legislation supposed to achieve? Is it a patch-up job? It gives $872 million of piecemeal upgrades over five years. After that time, the ARTC is bound by a system of key performance indicators [KPIs] that has not yet been finalised. Even when the KPIs are set in place, the public might never know what they are. Will this be enough to solve the problems our main freight lines are experiencing? The Engineers Australia infrastructure scorecard has given these lines a damning F-rating.
The 1880 Murrumbidgee River rail bridge near Wagga Wagga has a longstanding 20 kilometres per hour speed limit and should have been replaced years ago. About 25 per cent of the Sydney to Melbourne corridor and 45 per cent of the Sydney to Brisbane corridor have either steep grades and/or tight radius curves. This steam age alignment is the main reason that freight train transit times are so slow on each corridor. Indeed, a freight train has an average speed of less than 70 kilometres per hour between Sydney and Melbourne. As noted by the Minister on 6 December 2003 in announcing the ARTC agreement, a freight train has an average speed of a mere 47 per kilometres per hour between Sydney and Brisbane.
Rail now has a paltry 10 per cent of the Sydney-to-Melbourne intercity land freight market, leaving more than eight million tonnes of freight each year being transported by heavy trucks on the Hume Highway. That means up to 3,000 interstate truck movements on the Hume Highway on some nights, and that is extraordinarily dangerous. It is not surprising that the number of accidents has increased on that highway. According to the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, this amount of road freight will increase to 11.5 million tonnes a year by 2010, with rail freight dropping to a mere 0.9 million tonnes. That is disgraceful, and that is why I have outlined in detail the Government's bankrupt rail policy.
But still the Government is sitting on its hands. The ARTC agreement suggests that Sydney to Melbourne freight transit times will drop from 13.5 hours to 10.5 hours within five years, and rail's modal share will then climb to 20 per cent. But will that happen? Most Sydney to Melbourne freight trains take about 14 hours to cover about 950 kilometres, not the 13.5 hours stated in the track audit. That same audit states that the cost of the southern Sydney freight bypass would be $146 million. That cost has increased already to $180 million. Besides shifting targets and rising costs, there are major underestimations of the work required.
The proposed works for Glenlee to Junee do not include any significant track straightening—which surely will be essential. Indeed, just $4.9 million is allocated in the package announced in December 2003 for deviations and grade easing works, as opposed to the track audit summary noting $73 million for rail deviation works. Earlier this year I asked a question on notice about the 10.5-hour transit time for the Sydney to Melbourne freight route. On 30 March the Minister said in his answer that this was a target. I assume, therefore, that it is a target and not a key performance indicator. So the lease deal may not save the Hume Highway from an ever-increasing numbers of trucks. The Minister's reply also contains this amazing statement:
The New South Wales Government considers setting priorities for future planning of the interstate network is a Commonwealth responsibility.
This is clear proof that the ARTC lease deal is an exercise in buck-passing. It is an abrogation of responsibility. The State Government created this mess, and the State Government should do whatever it takes to fix it. One can imagine the outcry if the New South Wales Government told the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to stop all forward planning for major upgrades of the Hume and Pacific highways because those highways are a Commonwealth responsibility. Instead, the RTA has worked hard to ensure that advanced planning for major highway upgrades is done so that when Commonwealth funds are available the work can start without delay. The need for advanced planning for rail upgrades in Sydney has been well articulated by Mr Ron Christie when, as Co-ordinator General of Rail, he wrote in June 2001 to the transport Minister at the time, Carl Scully, about the long-term strategic plan for rail in the greater Sydney metropolitan region. In his letter, Mr Christie clearly stated:
The Long-Term Strategic Plan for Rail is long overdue. In contrast to the attention paid to road network development needs in recent years, there has not been a detailed and comprehensive examination of the needs of the greater metropolitan rail system since the former State Rail Authority was split up in 1996.
Mr Christie's comment applies equally well to rail serving regional New South Wales, and to the idea that advanced planning for rail track upgrades, as well as roads, is needed by New South Wales authorities. This would give us a much better chance of securing Federal funds under the new AusLink scheme for long overdue mainline track straightening. Should we be passing the buck to the ARTC? Let us look at its record in Victoria, which is very informative. The Greens are informed that freight and passenger trains that are meant to run at 130 kilometres an hour are running at 80 or 90 kilometres an hour—on track owned and maintained by the ARTC.
This means that trains leaving Melbourne are coming into Sydney one to two hours late. People are missing connections to go further north, and they are ferried on to buses that then race to catch up with a train. Sometimes these passengers finally board the train in Taree, Kempsey or Coffs Harbour. Sometimes they do not make it at all. Buses are dashing up the highway to the North Coast trying to catch up with a train. How ridiculous! What a waste of money. Should not the Minister be invoicing the ARTC for these costs? I understand this has been happening for two months. It suggests the ARTC is not the panacea the Carr Government hopes it will be.
The problems with our rail system should be fixed by the people who cause them. One of those people is now sitting in this Chamber. There should be no branch line closures. There should be no complex lease deals that cut jobs to satisfy a penny-pinching Carr Government. We do not need this bill. All we need is investment. Putting money into freight rail infrastructure is a long-term investment with social, environmental and economic benefits. The only pain is that suffered by a Treasurer obsessed with the bottom line. But he and his colleagues in Carr's Cabinet are out of step with the community. If we need debt to fund long-term investment in crucial infrastructure, people will support that. They did so for decades, and they would support it again now. We inherited our rail system from earlier governments that had vision. They took risks, they raised debt, and they built a magnificent railway infrastructure across New South Wales. What we are now seeing under the present Minister and the Premier is the greatest wind-back in public transport infrastructure since the dismantling of the tram system.
Sadly, today's governments can think only about budget surpluses and marginal seats. They really are trashing this inheritance. They do not care whether they leave a legacy or disappear into the dustbin of history. Minister, penny-pinching is not a policy, it is a cop-out. If a government does not invest in infrastructure and services, what is the point of that government's existence? It is not doing the job that governments are elected to undertake. Let us get serious about rail infrastructure—no tricky deals to shirk responsibility, no cutbacks and neglect. Let us fund rail, support it, nourish it. Do we want a future in which trucks ceaselessly thunder along our highways and locomotives are seen only in museums?
The Askin Government presided over a massive rundown in the rail system, and it is one of the Wran Government's major legacies that it resurrected some of what was lost. How do you want to be remembered by your children and grandchildren, Mr Costa? At the moment, your tag in history will be how you destroyed New South Wales rail. The Greens will oppose this bill. We call on the Government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solid, workable plan. The Greens will support a plan that guarantees top-class rail infrastructure and that does not jeopardise jobs. This certainly is not the right plan. It does not put us on track for a sustainable and secure freight rail infrastructure. We join the people of rural and regional New South Wales in urging the Government to think again.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [6.54 p.m.], in reply: I do not intend to spend much time replying to the debate. I congratulate honourable members who support the Government's bill and the negotiations that lead to it. This is visionary legislation. I will put two things on record. The first relates to the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon. Yes, in 1987 I did support a national approach to rail, and that is precisely what is before us. So I stand here very proud of the fact that we do have a national approach to rail. This is a sensible national public policy outcome.
I note that in 1987 Ms Lee Rhiannon was probably supporting the latest Soviet five-year plan. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union collapsed within that five-year time frame, so the honourable member has not seen her vision come to fruition. I do hope to leave a legacy and to be remembered as a person who on most issues opposed Ms Lee Rhiannon's Stalinist vision of the world. With those few words, I note that this is a very important day for the people of New South Wales and that this bill is an important step to a national, integrated transport strategy. I congratulate all who have been involved in bringing the measure to this point. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Amendments, by leave, by the Hon. Michael Costa agreed to:
No. 1 Page 17, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 11:
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), an agreement must contain provisions requiring ARTC to facilitate compliance by the rail authority with any industrial awards or agreements applicable to members of staff temporarily placed with ARTC under this Division.
No. 2 Page 17, schedule 1 [13], line 19. Insert ", if the information is relevant to the exercise by ARTC of its functions in respect of members of staff temporarily placed with it or to workplace safety or the safety of the NSW rail network" after "ARTC".
No. 3 Page 18, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 8:
(7) A rail authority must, in taking into account and acting on the basis of any disciplinary or other action taken by ARTC as referred to in subsection (6), have regard to any matters raised by the member of staff in relation to that action at the time that action was taken.
(8) The Public Employment Office may, from time to time, issue guidelines (not inconsistent with this section) for or with respect to the following matters:
(a) the matters to be taken into consideration by the chief executive of a rail authority in respect of the temporary placement of members of staff with ARTC under this section,
(b) requirements relating to the obtaining of consent to placement of members of staff with ARTC at a lower level of remuneration,
(c) the exercise by a rail authority of a power of dismissal of a member of staff as referred to in subsection (6).
(9) A rail authority and the chief executive of a rail authority must have regard to any applicable guidelines issued by the Public Employment Office under this section.
No. 4 Page 18, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 9:
Public Employment Office means the Public Employment Office constituted by the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.
No. 5 Page 18, schedule 1 [13], line 18. Omit "an unspecified period". Insert instead "a specified minimum period".
No. 6 Page 19, schedule 1 [13], lines 1–17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) affects the functions and liabilities of a transferring rail authority, or a director or a person concerned in the management of a transferring rail authority, in respect of a temporary member of staff of ARTC under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 or any employer liability legislation.
No. 7 Page 20, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 36:
(5) Nothing in this section permits a regulation to be made that has the effect of:
(a) removing from a transferring rail authority the obligation to have and maintain in force an insurance policy, or to be a self-insurer, under the Workers Compensation Acts in respect of any of its employees who are temporary members of staff of ARTC, or
(b) removing any liability of any such transferring rail authority in respect of injury to a temporary member of staff of ARTC under those Acts or that exists independently of those Acts.
No. 8 Page 26, schedule 1 [24], line 16. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "railway building".
No. 9 Page 27, schedule 1. Insert after line 29:
[33] schedule 6A, clause 2E
Insert at the end of the clause:
(2) Subclause (1) does not permit ARTC to extend or expand rail infrastructure facilities.
No. 10 Page 27, schedule 1. Insert after line 32:
[34] Schedule 6A, clause 3 (1) (b)
Insert "or facility" after "building".
No. 11 Page 28, schedule 1 [34], line 9. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".
No. 12 Page 28, schedule 1 [37], line 20. Insert "and rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".
No. 13 Page 28, schedule 1 [38], line 23. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".
No. 14 Page 29, schedule 1 [41], line 8. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "land".
No. 15 Page 29, schedule 1 [42], line 12. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".
No. 16 Page 29, schedule 1 [43], line 15. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building".
No. 17 Page 29, schedule 1 [45], line 19. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "building" where secondly occurring.
No. 18 Page 29, schedule 1 [47], line 25. Insert "or infrastructure owner" after "building owner".
No. 19 Page 29, schedule 1. Insert after line 25:
[48] Schedule 6A, clause 6 (1)
Insert "or facility" after "enter the building".
[48] Schedule 6A, clause 6 (1) (a)
Insert "or facility" after "entry to the building".
No. 20 Page 30, schedule 1 [49], line 7. Omit "is the building owner". Insert instead "or rail infrastructure facility is the owner of the building or facility".
No. 21 Page 30, schedule 1 [50], line 11. Insert ", infrastructure owner" after "land".
No. 22 Page 30, schedule 1. Insert after line 21:
[54] Schedule 6A, clause 7 (5)
Insert ", facility" after "value of the building".
No. 23 Page 31, schedule 1 [57], line 5. Insert "(as amended by this schedule)" after "7 (8)".
No. 24 Page 31, schedule 1 [57], line 6. Omit "building". Insert instead "facilities".
No. 25 Page 31, schedule 1 [58], line 11. Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "land".
No. 26 Page 32, schedule 1 [63], line 2. Insert "or a rail infrastructure facility" after "building".
No. 27 Page 32, schedule 1 [64], line 4. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".
No. 28 Page 32, schedule 1. Insert after line 6:
[66] Schedule 6A, clause 8 (3)
Insert "and facilities" after "buildings" wherever occurring.
No. 29 Page 33, schedule 1. Insert after line 14:
[78] schedule 6A, clause 10 (2)
Insert "or rail infrastructure facility" after "a building".
No. 30 Page 34, schedule 1 [89], lines 20–24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(1A) If ARTC is a party to a dispute and the dispute has not been resolved as referred to in subclause (1), the dispute is to be referred to arbitration, unless the parties agree to submit the dispute to the Minister under this clause. The Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 applies to any dispute referred to arbitration.
No. 31 Page 35, schedule 1 [91], line 2. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:
Omit "with respect to entry into operator buildings".
No. 32 Page 37, schedule 1 [95], line 14. Insert ", use or occupy" after "enter".
No. 33 Page 38, schedule 1 [97], line 17. Insert "or rail infrastructure facilities" after "buildings".
No. 34 Page 38, schedule 1 [97]. Insert after line 18:
(a1) requirements to be observed between infrastructure owners, building owners and railway land owners with respect to access by infrastructure owners and building owners to railway land and management of that access,
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 7.00 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:19 : Update this page