- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 17 November 2005
Pacific Highway Freight Transport
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 40 of 55
| Next Item »
Page: 19911
Mr IAN COHEN [2.35 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) recognises the danger posed to residents and motorists on the Pacific Highway by interstate freight (especially on non upgraded sections),
(b) condemns the Government for allowing B Doubles on the Pacific Highway, as gazetted in August 2002,
(c) notes that the interstate freight route is the New England Highway, and.
(a) calls on the Government to stop interstate freight on the Pacific Highway.
I said earlier that many people on or near the North Coast sections of the Pacific Highway are intimidated by B-doubles on a daily basis and are afraid to drive, especially at night. The prospect of having these enormous trucks bearing down on them is not to be envied. Residents are concerned about B-doubles sharing the road with parents taking their children to school, the elderly going shopping, and holidaymakers making their way to coastal destinations. The winding nature of the Pacific Highway and the fact that it is not a dual carriageway make it dangerous for such large vehicles to share the road with local and tourist traffic. Combine that with the fact that many truck drivers on the Pacific Highway openly confess to amphetamine use in order to meet tight schedules, and we have a recipe for disaster.
There are countless anecdotes from residents and tourists about accidents and near misses on the highway, as well as episodes of terrifying tailgating by B-doubles. In October 2003 a B-double chemical truck jack-knifed on the highway right next to residential housing in Ocean Shores. Accidents such as that highlight the dangers posed by these trucks. Possible chemical spills in residential areas are a nightmare that residents do not need. I condemn the Government for allowing 25-metre B-doubles on the Pacific Highway, as gazetted in August 2002. Prior to August 2002 there were trucks on the Pacific Highway, but not these monstrous 25-metre B-doubles. Since then the safety of residents and motorists on the highway has seriously deteriorated.
On the Pacific Highway heavy vehicles account for 15 per cent of traffic but are involved in 35 per cent of fatal crashes. I am sure that members of The Nationals will refer in debate to the interstate freight route. The New England Highway is not designated for interstate freight. Prior to B-doubles being allowed on the Pacific Highway in August 2002 the freight effort was shared between various routes, including the New England Highway. All freight was not forced onto the Pacific Highway. The Government should give serious consideration to upgrading the New England Highway, which was originally intended for the bulk of heavy vehicles and the carriage of freight.
The New England Highway is federally funded. Following the opening of the Pacific Highway to B-double use there was a drop in the number of B-doubles using the New England Highway and an increase of freight on the Pacific Highway. At a committee meeting at Newrybar Hall on 3 November there was consensus that interstate freight should be moved back to the New England Highway and that inland freight routes and rail options should be investigated immediately. We must provide adequate rail options for the north of New South Wales and other road freight options that distribute freight more equitably.
A significant number of communities in the north of New South Wales are saying, "Leave the Pacific Highway for motorists and move freight onto rail, especially in light of the fact that the world's oil supplies are dwindling." We must look toward the future and be prepared with better rail infrastructure. Heavy vehicles must be moved onto other motorways—for example, the Newell and New England highways—and we should investigate other options. Noise is a massive issue for residents. The Pacific Highway is a regional highway, not an interstate freight route. On 16 November in Grafton a meeting was called, at which the following were agreed:
Move Interstate freight back to the New England Highway now. Support your local members to De-gazette B doubles from the Pacific Highway now.
The RTA process is flawed and has no support from the communities and CLG's from Coffs Harbour to Tweed.
T2E is going to have a slow drive along the highway on 2 December to highlight these issues…
The community's desperate concern will encourage participation and demonstration in the development of a very well organised campaign in the north of New South Wales that will save the lives of people. The meeting also agreed:
We are calling on the Minister to immediately investigate alternative inland freight and rail options …
We call for a complete halt to RTA upgrade proposals for the Pacific Highway and a review of the North Coast Transport Strategy …
Areas of agreement included:
• the highway can be made safer immediately by enforcing speed limits and removing through transport.
• local upgrades, separate North/South traffic does not require a Motorway …
• there are many alternatives which would satisfy the transport issues. These MUST be examined by the government prior to route selection.
• there is a complete lack of confidence in the RTA.
• there should be an independent inquiry into the RTA.
• there are many serious ecological issues apparently ignored by the RTA.
Jack and Yvonne Harper advised my office of an advertising campaign in the area and said:
These ads have been backed up with TV commercials in prime time on 2 north coast TV channels. There have also been a series of public meetings in Newrybar, Ballina, Byron Bay and Grafton where representatives from 7 segments of the highway upgrades from Byron Bay to Coffs, met and agreed on a united front. We have also to date over 10,000 individual submissions (and growing) supporting the 4 points listed in the appended ad. These campaigns have not been funded by big business or developers. They ARE being funded by ordinary people who can ill afford the amounts of money that they have contributed willingly. The campaigns and meetings have NOT been orchestrated by experienced campaigners, they ARE being organised by a very dedicated and talented group of people. There is a united voice along the highway against an upgrade designed primarily to benefit heavy interstate transport.
I will not take up too much time of the House, but I want to quote a media release issued on Tuesday 7 November by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. It said:
Country Labor calls for a Moratorium of B-double trucks using the Pacific Highway.
As duty MLC for Ballina, Amanda Fazio today welcomed the resolution from the ALP country conference, calling on the Minister for Roads to investigate a 12-month moratorium on B-double trucks using the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway.
Local ALP members from the North Coast successfully urged the ALP country conference to call on the Minister for Roads to investigate placing the moratorium for 12 months or until that section of the highway has been upgraded to dual carriageway.
"The North Coast section of the Pacific Highway often experiences serious and sometimes fatal accidents each week. Many of these accidents involve large B-double trucks.
"We need to investigate measures that will help secure the safety of local residents.
"Investigating a moratorium of B-double trucks on the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway is a step in the right direction", said Amanda Fazio.
Ms Fazio congratulated local ALP members for urging the Australian Labor Party to support these changes.
I believe this matter is urgent and I ask the Government to take note of the motion. The massive campaign on the North Coast is costing the community a great deal but it is also uniting it. First, I ask the Government to seriously look at the processes that were undertaken by the RTA to develop its motorway strategy on the North Coast, which has got the community up in arms. Second, I ask the Government to seriously consider the removal of B-doubles, particularly—as I understand from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because of the concern about the 25-metre length of B-doubles on the highway—to reduce the level of truck movements and the danger on this important regional route. I commend my motion.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.45 p.m.]: The Opposition strongly supports some paragraphs of the motion, does not support other well intentioned paragraphs that are impossible to implement, and considers one to be just wrong. The Opposition asks that the paragraphs of the motion be put seriatim to accommodate its concerns. I congratulate Mr Ian Cohen on bringing this matter before the House. I know he is a concerned resident of the Byron Bay area, and that his friend, the honourable member for Ballina, Don Page, has done a huge amount of work on this matter. Like the honourable member, I attended the recent first hearing of the committee on the Pacific Highway, which was fantastically chaired by our colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. Members of the community appeared before the committee to express their concerns.
I am sure that all members of Parliament who were there were daunted by the anger, angst, concern and emotion shown by members of the community who have been affected by this matter. They feel disaffected because Joe Tripodi and the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] have ignored their concerns and have moved against them in so many ways. One could sense that the community was united in its genuine concern about this matter. Paragraph (a) of the motion states:
(a) recognises the danger posed to residents and motorists on the Pacific Highway by interstate freight (especially on non upgraded sections),
The Opposition agrees with that paragraph, which reflects the view that the community put to the committee. Paragraph (b) states:
(b) condemns the Government for allowing B Doubles on the Pacific Highway, as gazetted in August 2002,
That gazettal related to B-Doubles of more than 25 metres in length, but smaller B-doubles had been allowed to travel on that road for a number of years. As Mr Ian Cohen and the community have said, the change happened when the Federal Government spent money on the road because the State was not upgrading it for the community.
The Hon. Michael Costa: They insisted.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Minister said they insisted. The State Government has a long track record of putting its hand out to accept Federal Government money and then claiming it as its own. Federal Government funding has provided some excellent sections of road, but connecting sections are not in good condition. The gazettal supported by the RTA only took into account the good sections of road and did not consider the substandard sections. The RTA did not consider that local people use the Pacific Highway on a daily basis to take their children to and from school and to travel to and from work, and elderly people use it to shop but that they all have to share the road with very large vehicles that travel very quickly. Those people are intimidated by the trucks, because a large number of accidents occur on that road. The Opposition supports paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c) is wrong because there is no designated freight route. It states:
(c) notes that the interstate freight route is the New England Highway, and
There is no designated freight route. I suspect that the member is confused by the fact that it is a widely held belief—an accurate belief—that the larger part of interstate freight used to go up the New England Highway before improvements to the Pacific Highway but that it is now using the Pacific Highway because it is cheaper and quicker. However, this is certainly a problem for local residents. The Opposition does not support paragraph (c) because it is inaccurate. However, in the past some interstate freight did travel up the Pacific Highway.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: And the Newell Highway.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And the Newell Highway. Paragraph (d) calls on the Government to stop interstate freight on the Pacific Highway. I am sure it is the intention of the honourable member that only local trucks travel on the Pacific Highway. Even though that paragraph is well intentioned, it seeks to put in place something that is not achievable. Will we have customs officials checking the manifests of vehicles to see whether freight is going from Sydney to Brisbane or Coolangatta, or whether the freight is a back load from Coffs Harbours or Ballina, or whether the trucks are going to Coffs Harbour, dropping off freight, picking up another load and taking it on to Queensland. Indeed, some well-respected trucking companies have operated out of coastal regions such as Port Macquarie.
Paragraph (d) is well intentioned but it is not achievable. Unless it can be reworded, the Opposition cannot support it. Therefore, the Opposition supports paragraphs (a) and (b) but it does not support paragraphs (c) and (d). However, I congratulate the honourable member on moving the motion, because it reflects the genuine concerns of my colleagues about the Pacific Highway.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.53 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats have a proud record of campaigning for a national rail network and alternative transport to the endless sprawl of roads. My background in occupational health and safety—in which I have a masters degree—with special interest in shiftwork and its effects, reflect this. I have had a great interest in road safety since I have been in the Parliament and I have done work with the long-distance trucking industry. Indeed, I suggested a staging post halfway between Sydney and Brisbane, and another halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, where drivers, who would travel in pairs, one going south and one going north, could swap. Unloading facilities are often very poor and after drivers have travelled perhaps 1,000 kilometres, on many occasions they have to queue for hours to unload their trucks, at which time they become exhausted.
The change from the inland route to the coastal route with the augmentation of the Pacific Highway around Karuah and further north up to Taree is going ahead. The proposed route is causing some controversy, with four proposals being on the drawing board. The three cheaper ones are further from the existing road and have a greater environmental impact, and the environmentalists are up in arms about them. However, the Government has delayed the decision so long that more properties have been built along the routes and more residents are affected.
Also, over the past 50 years governments have allowed the rail network to decline and even though it could have been maintained at a reasonable cost, and loading and unloading facilities could have been kept up to date, easements have been set in those areas and controversy now surrounds the Port Enfield project. Roads are being built at far a greater cost than it would cost to maintain rail services.
It takes approximately one-quarter the amount of energy to carry freight on rail per tonne than it takes to carry it by road. Despite this the Government refuses to put money into rail maintenance and rail continues to decline, as the Murwillumbah to Casino debacle has shown. It should not be beyond the ability of our designers to achieve a smooth transfer of roll-on, roll-off containers from rail to road, yet remarkably little attention is given to this. B-doubles are extremely large, wide trucks that are almost trains running on roads. They are immensely threatening to anyone who tries to overtake them. They travel at tremendous speeds and local residents are distressed at sharing the road with them.
I support the motion. I urge the Government to provide more funding for the rail system to take pressure off roads and look at other ways than trucks to move freight. I wonder whether for the sake of saving a fraction of a cent per kilometre there should be a more diversified food source. The motion should receive the support of the House. I am not sure that the best solution is to push traffic onto the New England Highway, because that is a short-term solution of moving trucks onto relatively narrow roads. If the rail system were improved it would be a real option. If there were advanced technology with roll-on, roll-off facilities the trucks, with the exception of the prime movers, could travel on rail. The neglect of this aspect of freight handling has made rail unco-operative. More needs to be done before the oil crisis occurs and before there are more deaths on the Pacific Highway.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter) [2.57 p.m.]: I oppose the motion, not because I do not share the sentiments expressed—we all want to reduce accidents on all highways and roads; we all share that objective—but because the motion is misguided in that it does not recognise that the Pacific Highway is part of the national highway network. It does take freight. Any proposal that says one can overnight substitute the Pacific Highway and freight movement, be they B-doubles or any other form of truck movements, for truck movements misunderstands the economics of the transport industry.
We will always have a modal arrangement between our transport components. There will always be trucks on our roads. They are very efficient and effective at moving a range of freight over short distances particularly. At the same time, rail provides a very efficient and economic solution to the movement of both commodities over longer distances. Any notion that somehow they are interchangeable does not make sense. Anybody who understands the functioning of the State economy and the economics of transport would not support the motion.
I will approach this issue in a bipartisan way because I had a good relationship with the former Federal transport Minister, John Anderson. We tried to look at this issue on a serious basis with a view to providing some solutions, recognising that we do not live in a dictatorship and we cannot force people to use one particular road system as opposed to another. We cannot force all the traffic to travel down the New England Highway; traffic will continue to use the Pacific Highway. Yes, we are concerned about the state of the Pacific Highway. That is why both governments are investing large sums of money to upgrade that highway, and those funds are being proportionately shared between the two governments. We have said on many occasions that, from the New South Wales Government's point of view, we would like to see more Federal funds allocated.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a State road.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not going to get into a debate about whose road it is. Under the national AusLink arrangements the Commonwealth Government has a responsibility to provide funding for these roads. It is a joint responsibility. We have provided $1.6 billion over the 10-year program; the Commonwealth Government has provided substantially less. The proportion of trucks using the Pacific Highway has increased. It has increased not because of the AusLink arrangements with the New England Highway but because of the growth in the national economy. As we grow our economy there will be more transport movements, and those transport movements need to be accommodated.
I believe the reference to B-doubles is completely misguided. Anyone who knows anything about the trucking industry will realise that B-doubles reduce the amount of trucks on the road because they take larger payloads. That means there are fewer movements, not more movements. Certainly there are issues with B-doubles, which is why the State Government has looked at a range of safeguards in relation to vehicle standards and has progressed that through the National Transport Ministers arrangements. I think we have made some progress in those areas. We are also looking at global positioning systems, using new computer-based technology to ensure that those trucks stay on the roads that are designed for them.
The Government is committed to upgrading the Pacific Highway, and will work with the Federal Government, as part of the AusLink arrangements, to do that. Yes, it would be good to have more money. I call on the Commonwealth Government to provide more funds, and we will certainly put those funds towards the Pacific Highway. I do not want to get into a narrow, sterile, political point-scoring exercise, which I think is underpinned by part of this motion. The New South Wales Government recognises that local communities have legitimate concerns. The Government recognises that there are different levels of responsibility at different levels of government in relation to the Pacific Highway. We give a commitment to work with the Commonwealth Government to try to resolve those issues. However, as I said, more funding would help.
An argument has been put forward by the New South Wales Government, based on the funding arrangements currently in place, that there is a shortfall of around a half a billion dollars that ought to be provided by the Commonwealth Government to accelerate the upgrade of the highway. The notion that we could somehow close down the Pacific Highway and that it would cease to be a major freight corridor is misguided. I know rail intimately. I have worked in the industry. As I said, it is good for certain tasks. The technology is effective with bulk commodities over long distances, but less effective with time-critical freight over particular distances or locations that cannot be serviced by rail.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Not in New South Wales, where it is so expensive and so slow.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is impossible to put a rail line into every town in Australia. Therefore, logically, there will be truck movements. It is impossible to have a rail line into every farm, for example, to move grain or other produce. There will always be trucks on the road. We need to strike a sensible balance between the requirements for safety and noise-related environmental issues and the need for a functioning economy that has an integrated transport strategy that works. These are always great challenges because we do not have unlimited funds, but we will work with the Commonwealth Government to ensure that, over a sensible time frame, the Pacific Highway is upgraded.
I make the point that, so far as the accident statistics are concerned, when one compares the overall number of accidents one sees that not that many accidents have been caused by heavy vehicles. People have to be clear about that. I looked at these statistics when I was Minister for Roads and only a small proportion of accidents are related to trucks. In fact, ordinary motor vehicles that use our highway system are involved in more accidents. That is a fact. Yes, there are issues in relation to trucks and truck drivers, but I would be loath to attack the truck industry. I think they do a very good job in difficult circumstances to ensure that everyone gets the goods and services they want in a timely manner. What I was roads Minister, I attended a forum sponsored, I think, by 60 Minutes in which I had an opportunity to talk to a range of people in the industry about the pressures involved. It is a pressure industry, but those pressures are largely caused by consumer expectations.
It is unfair to blame the industry or to blame those in the industry for providing a service that delivers the goods that we need as a community. That is why I find it a little disturbing that we have not had a balanced approach to this. If the motion recommended that we all work together to try to deal with the problems associated with all of the State's highways, including of course the Pacific Highway, I would not have a major problem with that. As I said, there are funding issues. The Commonwealth collects an enormous amount of money from fuel excise but only a portion of that is channelled back to roads. When one looks at the State budget, one sees that all the funds that we collect from road users—they relate primarily to weight taxes—go back into the roads system. If we had unlimited funds we would already have upgraded the highway. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited funds and we have to work with the Commonwealth Government to try to ensure that we end up with a road network that makes sense and provides maximum safety in the conditions under which we have to operate.
The motion is unrealistic. There is no means by which we would be able to stop freight movements on the Pacific Highway. It is completely unrealistic to expect that. It is also unrealistic, as I said, to expect that things will somehow magically lend themselves to being moved by rail. The Pacific Highway is part of the national road network. It is a major eastern seaboard transport route. It services both local and interstate transport needs—I think sometimes people forget that there are local components to this issue. There are shopping centres, for example, up and down the coast that require the delivery of goods for people who live in those areas. They are going to be moved by heavy vehicles. As I said, if B-doubles are used they reduce the amount of trucks on the road because of their higher payloads.
It is not practical or possible for any government—the Federal Government or the State Government—to restrict transport to the New England Highway. That is unrealistic and that is why I have a problem with this motion. We have to work together to put a proper upgrade proposal in place. I sat down with John Anderson and we discussed a motorway, which was an attempt to try to bring forward the expenditure on the Pacific Highway to ensure that we ended up with the appropriate dual carriageway. A position seems to have emerged from some of the councils up north that they want neither the Pacific Highway nor the motorway, which is also completely unrealistic. A better approach would be to sit down with us—and, as I said when I was roads Minister, I am happy to facilitate some of those discussions.
In fact, I had an opportunity to meet with some of the local mayors and they were very interested in the proposal for a north coast motorway to take some of the pressure off the Pacific Highway. I think those discussions are the way forward. As I said, the suggestion that we can eliminate freight movements on the Pacific Highway is completely unrealistic. We are considering what to do in relation to B-doubles. Consultation is occurring at the national level, through the roads Ministers forum, the National Ministerial Council and the National Transport Commission to consider increased measures to improve safety issues associated with heavy vehicles. Once again, I make the point that that not every accident on the highway involves heavy vehicles—far from it. There are numerous accidents involving general traffic, in far greater numbers than those involving heavy vehicles.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It is about dual carriageways, not trucks.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Melinda Pavey. It is about getting a road that is much more effective, a dual carriageway, and that is what we are working towards. To focus on the trucks, truck drivers and truck industry is misguided. The responsible operators in the industry have taken a number of measures to improve safety, and I have met with them. The Government introduced chain-of-responsibility legislation, which was supported by members on both sides of the House. It went to the National Transport Commission and the National Ministerial Council. I believe that those measures will go a long way towards improving truck safety. As I said, however, the issue is about carrying out the upgrades in a sensible time frame.
The establishment of a motorway is a potential solution, but we must look at it objectively. If any area of the State lends itself to a motorway approach, I think the Pacific Highway is in that category. Based on the back-of-the-envelope modelling I have seen, a motorway would provide enormous benefits. For example, it would reduce travel time, provide environmental efficiencies on the basis of less fuel being utilised, and ensure a safer road. Honourable members cannot have it both ways. Some say they want a safer arrangement but they do not support options that could lead to the establishment of a motorway or dual carriageway and therefore a safer operating environment.
For those reasons we oppose the motion. However, as I said, we are sympathetic with the underlying premise that communities have an expectation that there be investment in their road system. We are providing that investment in partnership with the Commonwealth Government. Would we like more funds? Yes. Are they available at the moment? No. So we will have to work within our limitations to ensure we get the roads in place. We have made some progress over the last 10 years. From memory, about 40 per cent of the Pacific Highway from Hexham to the Queensland border is now dual carriageway, and there have been significant openings of new sections. Over the next 10 years we will invest more money to ensure we end up with a sensible approach. But there is no simple solution. We cannot ban trucks from using the Pacific Highway, and it is not economically feasible to put all freight on rail. We must consider that the people in the trucking industry have a livelihood based on the efficient performance of the industry, and also that the residents of the area need goods and services.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.11 p.m.]: This motion has arisen because of the sheer frustration and concern of the people who live along the Pacific Highway. The people who go to work, school and sporting events in the area are constantly scared to drive on that highway. Much of their frustration and concern has been caused by the Government's mismanagement of the Pacific Highway upgrade program over the past 10 years. Some weeks ago my good friend the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, tried to debate this issue with the Minister for Roads. The honourable member was concerned about the fact that the Bonville deviation, for which planning was approved in March 2000, had not been completed. Since planning for the project was approved, 13 people have been killed on that section of the road. Andrew Fraser was passionate about saving more people from the tragic circumstances that have befallen the families of the 13 people who have been killed on the road over the past couple of years.
The brochure issued by the Roads and Traffic Authority some years ago said that the Ballina bypass was scheduled to be completed by now. So we have two major sections of dangerous road, and there is a lot of commuter traffic mixing with transport traffic, which is creating this emotion, fear and concern. I acknowledge some of the comments made by the Minister for Infrastructure. I do not want our fears and frustrations to be taken out on the trucking industry. The frustration should be taken out on the State Labor Government for its incompetence in handling this issue. I also acknowledge the Federal Government's contribution in trying to get some of the trucks off the Pacific Highway or to limit growth of the New South Wales trucking industry.
Over many years the Federal Government had been trying to include New South Wales in the Australian Rail Track Corporation network. For many years there was a lot of stumbling and bumbling around on that issue. At the time Carl Scully was the Minister for Transport. However, it took the new Minister to do something about it. We have had lots of mistakes and lots of problems under Carl Scully. I acknowledge that the Minister for Infrastructure and the Hon. John Anderson had a good working relationship. However, they should not be congratulated on that; it should be the norm. I suppose the criticism is therefore levelled at Carl Scully for his inability to bring forward that investment and funding for the North Coast rail line. Last year the Government announced a funding allocation of $450 million to improve rail infrastructure on the North Coast, to ensure we get some of the trucks that travel north—whether it be on the New England Highway or the Pacific Highway—off those roads. That is a good measure; indeed, it is what should happen. However, I make the point that that funding allocation came a couple of years too late. If there had been a better level of management in this State, it would have come sooner.
There is also the problem of the Roads and Traffic Authority's cost and planning overruns. We have had three roads Ministers in 3½ years. In that time we have had Carl Scully, the Hon. Michael Costa, and now Joe Tripodi. The big problem with Joe Tripodi is that he would rather play politics than achieve outcomes. He has been caught out on that issue because, whilst the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has sincerely apologised for his actions in the other place a couple of weeks ago, the community reaction was against Joe Tripodi for his inciting such a reaction and playing politics with such an emotional issue. I recall some of the letters to the editor published in newspapers following that incident. A letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald said Mr Fraser's actions were dreadful. But could someone show me where the end of the line is? I believe the community reaction to the incident shows the level of people's outrage about the Government's incompetence at the ministerial level of such a major portfolio. It is for that very reason that we have had $400 million cost overruns on Pacific Highway projects—which have prevented other upgrades of the highway being completed, such as the Ballina bypass and the Bonville deviation.
The motion arises from the fact that people are concerned about the increasing number of trucks on the Pacific Highway, and about mixing that truck traffic with local commuter traffic. A lot of people are moving to the North Coast; the population growth rates there are significant. People are seeking an alternative lifestyle, perhaps starting up businesses or simply seeking to give their families a better way of life. So we have these compounding problems, but we also have a government that has not been able to properly manage the duplication of the road over the past 10 years. With regard to the motion's reference to the New England Highway, we cannot tell truck drivers which roads they should use; it is a reasonably free country. The point must be made that many of those trucks deliver goods to the major towns and centres up and down the coast, and transport goods from those major towns and centres to markets in Sydney and Brisbane. So it is unrealistic to suggest that we can stop interstate freight on the Pacific Highway and move it to the New England Highway.
It must be borne in mind that the State Government has received an extra $8 billion—more than it budgeted for—in GST revenue and property taxes. So when the Government cries poor about the GST, it is worth remembering that it has received a hell of a lot more than Bob Carr signed up for. This motion is about the extra $8 billion the Government has squandered rather than invested in infrastructure on the New England Highway, the Princes Highway, the Pacific Highway and the Newell Highway—not to mention all the roads in Sydney.
It is important to keep those issues in mind. I am a resident of the North Coast. When I mentioned to friends at a school fete that I was driving to Port Macquarie they said, "Be careful, drive safely." There is a community of concern because of the dangerous condition of the roads and the amount of traffic on them. I understand the sentiments relating to the motion. The Opposition will support paragraphs (a) and (b) but not paragraphs (c) and (d) of the motion.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.20 p.m.]: I acknowledge the remarks made by the former Minister for Roads, Michael Costa, about a number of meetings he held with local councils. In particular, I appreciated his meeting with the Mayor of Ballina, Phil Silver. While people are unhappy about the Government's entire record relating to the Pacific Highway, I must praise the former Minister for his performance, compared with that of the current Minister for Roads, Joe Tripodi, of whom I was particularly critical last night. Unfortunately, the current Minister is playing political games with the Pacific Highway. It is totally inappropriate to take that approach on this issue. The Minister is learning the hard way that this issue is beyond politics; it is beyond having a little fun and stirring the pot a bit with a few of his parliamentary colleagues. This is life and death, and I hope the Minister is getting that message.
As for the background to this issue, there was a major upgrade. I think that upgrade my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was referring to was the Yelgun to Chinderah upgrade, which resulted in bypassing the notorious Burringbar range. The Burringbar range had a high fatality rate, a number of low speed zones and what I think was the most profitable speed camera in the State. Indeed, one speed camera in the Burringbar range was bringing in revenue to the State in excess of $1 million per month.
Mr Ian Cohen: And saving lives.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: And saving lives, yes.
Mr Ian Cohen: A cheap option.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: That $1 million per month suggests that many people were still breaking the speed limit, and numerous lives were still lost. It was marvellous when the Yelgun to Chinderah bypass opened. However, we did not realise that the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] snuck through a little regulation change that altered the size of trucks that could travel on the Pacific Highway. I note that Byron Shire Council submitted an objection to the Ombudsman on the way the that regulation went through; the local councils and communities were virtually unaware of this happening. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and as a result the RTA has changed its procedures so that whenever such a change is made in the future the community will be properly notified that it is under consideration. Unfortunately, it is too late in the case of the large B-doubles on the Pacific Highway.
The opening of the Yelgun to Chinderah bypass resulted in the black spots on the Pacific Highway moving to other places. We are now able to avoid the Burringbar black spot, but the black spots moved because the amount of traffic and size of the trucks increased. As a result, other parts of the road that were not so dangerous previously became more dangerous because of the change in traffic and traffic volumes. That is what has given this issue a lot of heat. As the Minister said, the Pacific Highway is a local road as well as a highway. However, it is not just a local road in regard to freight deliveries. It is also the main local road for the people living on the coast who want to travel to the traditional inland port city centres. The coastal population is in places like Ballina and Byron and all the work, study and hospitals is taking place is Lismore, which necessitates enormous local usage of the Pacific Highway. The same can be said for communities further south on the coast in terms of travelling to Grafton and Taree, where the hospital is located.
There is enormous traffic going backwards and forwards. The Pacific Highway is unavoidable because there is no coast road. The coast road between Ballina and Byron Bay is frequently used when there is a major accident at Tintenbar, for example. It comes in handy when the RTA uses road diversions. Horrifically sized trucks, B-doubles, travel down Ross Lane and almost fall off the edge of the road. Certainly, oncoming traffic must stop while the trucks make their way down the hill, and it is difficult to get through the roundabout at the top of Lennox Head, where my home is located. Similarly, if there is a major accident on the road between Ballina and Grafton traffic is diverted to the Summerland Way, which necessitates travelling through Alstonville.
Trucks trying to negotiate through the town of Alstonville are physically unable to take the corners in Main Street. It is diabolical. Traffic diversions occur without notice, not only following accidents—although that is the common cause—but also when the road floods, and so on. B-doubles were allowed on the road simply because the Burringbar problem had been fixed. However, the message from the community is that the rest of the system was unsuitable for these large trucks. In relation to the topography of the existing road, I mention Tintenbar Hill. That part of the State is volcanic country and there are a lot of beautiful hills. The RTA built the road in such a way that at the bottom of the hill and into the valley the road takes a sweeping curve, say, to the left. Truck drivers try to increase speed as they come down the hill, but they get up too much speed; when they travel back up the hill and try to take the curve to the left they lose control, cross the width of the entire highway and slam into the embankment.
I have seen three B-doubles do that and slam into the same section of the embankment. Similar accidents happen time and again. I am aware of many more accidents happening in the same way in the same spot, and they often happen at night. When the trucks are removed with cranes, people are relieved there are no cars underneath. The B-doubles have enormous potential to wipe out buses or any other vehicles travelling north as they travel south. I do not blame the problem on the truckies. Although there is enormous anger towards the truckies, particularly in relation to the Ballina bypass, I have said publicly that I am sure the truckies do not wish to drive through Ballina.
Perhaps in a sense we should be working with the trucking community to achieve road improvements on the Ballina bypass. Rather than seeing trucks as the cause of the problem, perhaps they can be part of the solution. However, I believe that some truck drivers behave badly, and that must be addressed. I refer to the awful triple fatality at Coffs Harbour recently. Coincidentally, I was driving home that night. As I approached Clybucca at about 9.00 p.m.—the road at Coffs Harbour had just been reopened following the accident—I saw a stream of light coming towards me. More than 200 trucks would have been backed up because of the road closure at Coffs Harbour. The trucks came towards me like a river of light, a convoy of more than 200 trucks in the middle of the night. Any motorists caught up in the middle of the convoy would have been absolutely terrified.
I do not understand the reason for the lighting on trucks at night. I realise that a reasonable amount of light is required for headlights to show the road and for there to be marker lights on the sides of trucks, but I do not understand why the war paint and colour on the front of trucks is necessary. Trucks, with horns blaring, can come within a foot or so of the back of one's car in the middle of the night. I think such lighting on trucks, which is obviously deliberately intended to intimidate motorists and get them off the road, should be illegal. All of us have been driven off the road by such behaviour on the Pacific Highway. Motorists simply get off the road because they know that that is what the truckies want, and it is not wise to argue with a B-double in those circumstances.
I turn now to the New England Highway, which has not had a huge drop in interstate freight. The New England Highway has a similar problem with increasing freight traffic. According to the RTA and evidence we received during our rail inquiry, although freight traffic on the Pacific Highway has doubled, it has not resulted in a decline in freight traffic on the New England Highway. This point is important because obviously we are struggling with this problem. I do not think our community wants to lump our problem onto another problem. We want a solution to the increasing freight traffic.
There has been an explosion in interstate freight. It is not necessarily all funnelled off the highway, but there has been an overall growth in freight. That is why we want to see rail solutions to the problem. People are asking why the Government is closing rail lines and destroying our rail system at a time when we have never needed more to get freight off the roads. That is the obvious solution and people cannot understand why it is not being pursued.
The Minister said that only a small number of accidents on the Pacific Highway involve trucks. Trucks are involved in more accidents than is reflected in the statistics. About a year ago an accident caused the death of three people at Ballina. I was watching my son play football when this occurred. The accident involved a head-on collision between two cars. One car had been behind a truck and was not visible to the other car. Without going into the complexities of the accident, the accident was certainly not the fault of the truck driver, but had the truck not been on the road, the accident would not have occurred, as the road is not suitable for coping safely with trucks of that size.
This is not about blaming truck drivers or trucks—the road is not fit for that type and volume of traffic—it is about safety. There cannot be any more important policy objective. I support my community in its calls for the Government to rethink these strategies, which are causing the full burden of freight to fall on roads that are ill equipped to handle it.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.31 p.m.]: I concur with what the Hon. Catherine Cusack said. I have no particular insight into the answer to this problem but I would ask the Minister to look at these issues and address them. I have received a number of emails from people along the Pacific Highway, including one from a long-time employee of Wesley Mission. Through Wesley Mission I have been responsible for about 30 centres of care along the Pacific Highway to the Queensland border. In most of those locations there is concern about the road. Lesley Toseland, one of my staff, e-mailed me as follows:
Dear [Dr] Moyes
I am employed by Wesley Uniting Employment at Ballina.
I write to seek your support in a local matter.
The RTA has announced Route Options for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway, between Ballina and Byron Bay. The proposal is for a 6-Lane Motorway rather than an upgrade to a 4-lane Class A highway. The smaller upgrade would more than adequately meet the region's needs for the future IF the heavy transport currently using the road was diverted back to the New England Highway.
I am aware that there is not just one highway for B-doubles and another for heavy transport. I would like the Minister to answer my questions on this issue. There is an urgent need for more freight to be carried by rail, as we all appreciate. But my informant indicates that with the opening of the northerly Yelgun to Chinderah section of the highway upgrade several years ago a regulation was passed by Parliament permitting B-double trucks to use the Pacific Highway. My informant tells me that the number of trucks using the highway now exceeds 2,000 vehicles per day, most of them travelling at night. This is a real worry for local people using the highway, including children who have just gained their P-plates following their Higher School Certificate exams.
People in the area tell me they wish us to degazette the regulation concerning the use of B-doubles on the Pacific Highway. I ask the Minister whether that is a possibility, whether it is desirable, and whether it would have the effect of pushing B-doubles back onto the New England Highway. It seems to me that there is a major breakdown with the Roads and Traffic Authority on these matters. The Minister's responses may help to clarify the position and put people's minds at rest in relation to what the Government is doing on what is obviously an extremely vexing and important local issue.
Mr IAN COHEN [3.36 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I am cognisant that I have taken the time of the House, but it is an important matter that in the long term could save lives. It is vital that we look at these issues in detail. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the gazettal of changes to highway use after the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] improved some sections of the road. The black spots are now further north. The quickest way to deal with the black spots is to upgrade the existing Pacific Highway rather than divert resources to major infrastructure development that will take much longer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the proposal in paragraph (d) of my motion is unachievable as there would be difficulties with Customs officers checking freight between Sydney and Brisbane. What happened before August 2002, before B-doubles were allowed to use the highway?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Your motion bans interstate freight.
Mr IAN COHEN: I was deliberately looking beyond B-doubles in the wording of my motion. Prior to August 2002 certain vehicles were not allowed on the Pacific Highway, and that was effectively policed. There was an impact when the Government changed the regulation. I strongly disagree with the view put forward that we cannot direct which trucks may use various routes. But we can ameliorate the pressure on one route by spreading traffic across various transport routes and transport modes.
I commend the serious participation of the Hon. Michael Costa in this debate. His input is valuable. He concedes that it is effective to send bulk freight long distances by rail. I agree that it is less effective over short distances. But no-one is saying that effective, short-distance truck transport should be banned. With the bimodal trail-rail forms of transport and freight terminals, containers can be loaded from road onto rail and then back onto road at the other end. This means that the short-distance component is done by truck and the long-distance component between the major capital cities is done effectively by rail.
There is endless information about this. It is done in United States and it would be more than possible here. An integrated transport strategy would reduce accident statistics. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack suggested, there may be fudging of statistics: although trucks may not cause accidents, their presence could lead to more accidents. Anyone who travels sections of the Pacific Highway, as my friends and I do, knows the huge danger on that road, especially at night on the North Coast when there is heavy rain. It is downright dangerous and the situation is compounded by some elements of the trucking industry. I am not saying all truck drivers are at fault, but significant numbers of them drive like cowboys. They are dangerous, they are bullying, and they tailgate while trying to get their freight to the depot on time. They are driving dangerously and are freaking the daylights out of people in the community. What do we have to say to get the point across to them that their driving is dangerous? That area is like a war zone. I obtained my driving licence on my seventeenth birthday and have been driving ever since. I have driven light trucks and vans.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: When was that?
Mr IAN COHEN: A long time ago—in about 1967. I, and many others like me who live on the North Coast, have to use motor vehicles because of the paucity of public transport. When I am on these roads and see truck drivers driving dangerously, because of the clever communication system truck drivers have of notifying one another of the location of police and roadblocks, there are no police to be seen. Speed cameras were erected in the Burringbar Ranges and the Government made a lot of money from them. That sent a message to many people using that section of road and it reduced the number of accidents. On other sections of road, for example, at St Helena, truck drivers are given a warning that they are going too fast but there are no police to stop them or to tell them they will be fined. It is tragic that 13 people died recently on the Bongil Bongil section of that highway.
I commend the Hon. Melinda Pavey for her contribution. She said the rail network must be encouraged to take some of this freight. The trucking industry has considerable power over State and Federal governments but we must tell it to carry its freight on other highways. We must regulate to get major freight trucks off the Pacific Highway and share the traffic, thus making that highway and the New England Highway safe. We must also upgrade the Newell Highway and make it safe, and upgrade rail services.
When we take into account the death and destruction on the Pacific Highway we have to include all the health costs and the ancillary physical and emotional costs of that carnage. If we upgraded all those other highways, we would be providing the people of New South Wales with a better freight service. The Hon. Catherine Cusack said that freight on the New England Highway had not been reduced. The freight load must be shared by both rail and road. I know there is support for paragraphs (a) and (b) of my motion. However, I seek leave to amend paragraph (c) so that it will read:
(c) notes that the interstate freight should be shared with other major transport routes including rail.
That amendment will keep the motion simple and straightforward. It is not necessarily appropriate to target the New England Highway, as it has its own problems. We must spread the freight so the Pacific Highway is made safer for everybody. We must distribute the potential wealth of the transport industry Australia-wide. I am quite happy for each paragraph of my motion to be voted on seriatim. Those living in coastal communities need to know the position of all honourable members in this House. I thank all members who participated in the debate on the motion and I commend it to the House. As honourable members have expressed a desire to view my amendment in written form before deciding whether to grant leave for me to move it, perhaps we should adjourn the debate to a later hour.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:56 : Update this page