Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail Link

Debate resumed from 10 April 2008.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.32 p.m.]: I have looked forward to contributing to debate on this motion for some time. There is no doubt that this proposal has been the subject of considerable debate generally. It all comes down to investment on rail infrastructure generally, and more particularly grain lines in country areas of New South Wales. In my capacity as shadow Minister for the Hunter Valley I will pursue the active participation of the Port of Newcastle in any proposed inland rail project. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, who has had considerable experience both inside and outside Parliament in considering this erstwhile project, will no doubt have much more to say about it than I.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Tell us more.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Penny Sharpe wants more, and she will get more. The people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley most certainly want to be part of this debate. They certainly want to play a role in the future of freight in New South Wales. This inland rail project is about freight. Unfortunately, the New South Wales State Government has stripped away from country communities much-needed investment on rail freight lines, and as a result there is more and more reliance upon road freight. It is of particular concern to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley that because of this neglect by the State Government more and more heavy vehicles, rather than rail carriages, will transport grain to the Port of Newcastle. If it is moved by rail, there will be fewer heavy vehicles on our roads, thus making our highways safer for road users. The people of Newcastle want to be part of the project; they do not want to be forgotten in the process. Melbourne and Brisbane are not the only considerations; Newcastle wants to be part of the future too. I look forward to the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox's learned and well thought out reply to this debate, which relates to a matter of significant importance to not only Newcastle and New South Wales, but also to the nation as a whole.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.36 p.m.]: New South Wales and Queensland have established a cross-border transport task force to investigate several aspects of transport in this region. In late 2006 the Premier met with the then Queensland Premier to discuss one aspect in particular—a proposal for a heavy rail link with Queensland. The two Governments have now committed to a more integrated transport future for the border region. Following this meeting, a joint New South Wales-Queensland discussion paper on heavy rail was released outlining a commitment to a more integrated approach, including devising short- to medium-term improvements to local transport services. The focus will be on regional connections—as opposed to the previous XPT service, which provided journeys to Sydney. Public submissions are being examined and I understand the final report will be forthcoming in the near future.

For most people who live in the Tweed the border is just a line on a map. People use services, visit friends and travel to work and school across the border every day. Studies of the border region suggest that future growth will increase these economic and social links. In the long run, it makes sense to join northern New South Wales to south-east Queensland.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: What a revelation from the Australian Labor Party! Why haven't you done it? You closed the railway line and you lost the seat. Don't tell me the scales have fallen from your eyes. Wow, what a breakthrough!

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I am amazed by these kinds of responses from members of the Opposition, who ran around at the State election saying that what the people of the Tweed really want is a train line down to Sydney. Had they spoken to anyone in the Tweed, they would have known that what people in the Tweed want is a train line to south-east Queensland. That is why the Premier has committed to examining the need for eventual heavy rail connections. However, in the short term on the New South Wales side of the border we are trying to maintain low-density approaches to growth, while Queensland is allowing very high-density growth. That is okay—Queensland is doing what it feels is best for its individual needs.

Projected growth rates for south-east Queensland are around 55,000 people each year. On the New South Wales side, growth rates are estimated at around 2,500 people a year. When one compares beautiful towns like Kingscliff with what is happening over the border, one can see that the New South Wales Government is taking the right approach. While growth in Queensland has occurred along a clear corridor—which is easy to service with rail—growth on the New South Wales side of the border has taken the form of a region of villages. For those who are not familiar with the region, I advise that population on the New South Wales side of the border is dispersed widely along the coast and inland.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: And you treat them like village idiots.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I know who the village idiot is here. While there are around 250,000 people in northern New South Wales, there is approximately 10 times that number—2.6 million—in south-east Queensland. The community is widely dispersed across the regional centres of Tweed Heads, Lismore and Ballina; the five towns of Murwillumbah, Casino, Mullumbimby, Byron Bay and Kyogle; 36 rural and coastal villages; 110 small villages; and numerous rural communities. Around half of the region's people live in major towns and half in coastal or inland villages, smaller communities, hamlets and rural areas.

The low population densities on our side of the border mean that designing a transport solution is not as simple as drawing a line on a map from Murwillumbah to Coolangatta, as some have suggested. At the moment some local and community bus services are available in and between some towns on the New South Wales far North Coast. It is clear that we need better connectivity between the towns in the region and better connections to south-east Queensland, which is why the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland had to examine the needs of the region. I look forward to the Cross Border Transport Taskforce report. It will form the basis of a sustainable response to the area's transport needs.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.41 p.m.]: Based on the growth rate of the border region, it makes sense to secure a heavy rail corridor for the future. As my colleague outlined, the Iemma Government has put together a Cross Border Transport Taskforce to look at the long-term needs of the area and to recommend what action needs to be taken now to prepare for growth. The upper House parliamentary inquiry confirmed that what the community needs is not a train to Sydney but local transport services. People familiar with the areas know that an XPT to Sydney is not what people want. They want to get around their own region on local transport services that take them to work and to school and help relieve congestion in places such as Byron Bay. In short, they need local public transport; not intercity services.

There have been many proposals about what to do in the region but a train to Sydney is not the solution. These days more people travel from northern New South Wales to the Gold Coast and Brisbane. More often these days people go there to work or study. Over time we will need trains to south-east Queensland. As the Queenslanders are extending their trains from Robina to Coolangatta, it makes sense to see whether a rail corridor can be made to work that connects New South Wales up to that coastal line. When, and along what alignment, are being considered by the taskforce. The report of the task force is still being finalised but issues such as promotion of public transport use generally could be considered. It could be argued that if we get better public transport more people will use it.

Consultation should be part of the planning process. Cross-border regions need to communicate and cooperate effectively on transport issues so that transport operators and passengers are not disadvantaged by differences in jurisdictions and a clash of rules across State borders. Improvements made to taxi services in the region are a good example of cooperation. As a result of unprecedented cooperation between the governments on both sides of the border a new dual-ranks taxi plan has been implemented to greatly improve services.

A dual rank allows passengers to choose their taxi depending on which State they are travelling to, and operators from both sides of the border are allowed to pick up passengers from the ranks. A dual rank is in operation at the Coolangatta Airport and we are in discussions about other appropriate locations. The New South Wales-Queensland border is meaningless to those who cross it every day for school, work and social travel. The community has made it clear that connectivity with south-east Queensland is at the heart of the region's transport task. For this reason future transport planning must be conducted in partnership with Queensland. The joint New South Wales-Queensland study is doing just this. The study is looking at short-term and long-term plans to deliver improved transport services in the region. This deserves a considered and thorough approach that takes into consideration the views of local residents. That is exactly what is being done through the joint study.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [3.45 p.m.]: I seek leave to continue my remarks about the inland rail project.

Leave granted.

The construction of the inland rail project based on the far western sub-corridor route has been estimated to be in the vicinity of $3.5 billion and will involve major capital works in regional New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Over time the economic benefits of the construction of the proposed inland rail route and maintenance will obviously be significant. It will generate direct employment in regional areas and stimulate regional development through the project's demand for rail products such as sleepers, line, ballast, timber products, sand, cement, steel and site offices. Regional communities will also benefit indirectly through increased demand for locally provided services.

The proposed inland rail route will bring economic benefits and increased competition and choice for freight users by allowing for the diversion of freight that currently moves between regional areas and ports. For example, 27 per cent of grain freight from northern New South Wales could be diverted from Newcastle to Brisbane, thus easing congestion on the Hunter Valley line. Approximately 50 per cent of containerised cotton from the Narrabri area could be diverted from Port Botany to Brisbane. Coal from Ashford, near Inverell, could go on the northern part of the line to Brisbane. About 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of grain from southern New South Wales could be removed from road transport if the rail link is connected from Narrandera to Tocumwal. About 400,00 tonnes of rice from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area could be diverted to Port Botany from Melbourne because of the shortened rail trip. Chilled meat from southern New South Wales could be moved from road transport to rail.

The proposed inland rail project will also generate additional revenue from southern Queensland freight travelling to the western States and from Perth freight travelling to the east coast. These freight diversions all depend on the associated ports being able to handle the extra freight, the shipping patterns, access charges, and the capacity of the rail network linkages to the ports in metropolitan areas. These remain significant challenges, particularly in New South Wales. I note that the Federal Government is making a significant infrastructure investment through the Australian Rail Track Corporation and through AusLink track and signalling upgrades to alleviate some of the problems on the current coastal rail route caused by the New South Wales Government's failure to invest in rail infrastructure.

These investments, along with the proposed inland rail link, are likely to increase the share of freight moved by rail. On some estimates, rail market share is likely to grow to 70 per cent to 80 per cent on the Melbourne to Brisbane route from its current level of only 21 per cent. Similarly, rail freight share may potentially grow to 20 per cent of the Sydney to Melbourne freight market and 25 per cent of the Sydney to Brisbane market. The resulting efficiency gains would be considerable, as would the environmental benefits of a very significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Economic benefits will also flow from the lower transit time of 20.5 hours, down from the current transit time of 35 hours, for the Melbourne to Brisbane route. The inland rail project will also deliver unprecedented rail reliability on this route, as well as freeing up capacity on the existing coastal rail route.

I now address some of the environmental benefits of the project. A key environmental benefit is that the transport of freight by rail is more energy efficient than it is by road. The Australasian Railway Association estimates rail is nine times more energy efficient, with one train being the equivalent to 150 trucks. In addition, freight carried on trains reduces the need for road construction and maintenance. It also reduces motor vehicle traffic congestion in metropolitan areas and on country roads. The resulting improvements in public safety are obvious. Professor Laird from the University of Wollongong stated in his 2001 discussion paper that Sydney's growing rail congestion and the probability that Melbourne-Brisbane freight rail services will not be improved could result in a massive investment in the Newell Highway, allowing the majority of freight to be delivered by road trains. This would require huge investment. Why invest in such costly, and ultimately unnecessary, road upgrades instead of an inland rail project with all of its attendant economic, efficiency, environmental and safety benefits?

One of the best ways to illustrate the potential scale of the benefits likely to flow from the inland rail project is to examine the benefits that flowed from other rail projects of similar scale and scope. One that comes readily to mind is the Alice Springs to Darwin rail line, completed in September 2003 and opened in January 2004. This new rail line, which cost $1.2 billion, runs for 1,410 kilometres and was built with funding from the Commonwealth, Northern Territory and South Australian governments. Prior to its construction some commentators derided it as a white elephant that would not deliver significant economic benefits to the nation. About 80 per cent of the freight currently carried by this new line is general freight, fuel, agricultural produce, beef and defence materials. Previously this freight was carried by road or sea.

The new line has resulted in reduced costs for the transportation of high-bulk freight from mining and produce. The line has stimulated other freight and economic activity along its route. It has also reduced road maintenance costs and cut 50 per cent from the average freight times for delivery from Adelaide to key Asian markets. Time savings from the new line are up to three days on goods to Singapore. In 2000 this was worth $A5.9 billion, as Singapore is our sixth largest export market. Other benefits of the new line include 40 million litres of fuel saved annually—we can all imagine the greenhouse gas implications of that. Carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 100,000 tonnes annually. The line has the potential to remove 450 tonnes of carbon emissions caused by road transport each day. It also provides an important transport hub linking all mainland capitals for the first time. The port of Darwin has been upgraded, which has resulted in economic development for freight handlers, the Northern Territory and South Australia.

The new line has opened up Asian fresh food markets for produce from the Ord River Scheme such as melons, pumpkins, bananas and mangoes worth $70 million a year to local communities. Access Economics assessed the economic benefits flowing from the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin rail line in June 1999, on a conservative basis, as an increase of $660 million in national gross domestic product. In addition, we can expect an increase of $360 million in gross state product in South Australia, an increase of $200 million in gross state product in the Northern Territory, and an increase of at least 7,100 jobs in national employment comprising, in part, an increase of 2,600 jobs in South Australia and an increase of 1,300 jobs in the Northern Territory.

We can expect similar benefits to flow from the construction of the inland rail project. Indeed, we would expect far greater benefits from the fact that the inland rail project will flow through populated areas of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. As a result there will be a lot more opportunity for add-ons. The potential stimulus from economic opportunities along the route of the inland rail project is very much different from those from the Alice Springs to Darwin project, which goes through some terribly inhospitable terrain with few development opportunities. As new areas are opened along the rail line opportunities will follow, many of which cannot be predicted. That has been the overseas experience and the experience along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway.

Progress on this important project of national significance essentially comes down to three core elements: vision, leadership and funding support. That is the challenge confronting the Labor governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the Commonwealth. Will the new framework of cooperative federalism under Labor rise to the occasion and make this project a reality? Or will we see more vacillation, more committees, and more talk instead of action on this project and other important investment in rail infrastructure in all States? Given Labor's preference at all levels of government for spin over substance, there is serious cause for concern. The New South Wales Labor Government must also move now to fix the existing bottlenecks in the coastal rail line and reverse the appalling lack of investment in New South Wales grain lines. These key investments go hand in hand with the proposed inland rail project if we are to maximise the enormous benefits that will flow from the efficient use of rail in this nation.

In conclusion, I call on Federal and State governments and industry bodies to progress the Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail project following the release of the scoping study and, on conclusion of the study, support the market testing of the project for private sector investment in partnership with government. The inland rail project is a major new microeconomic reform that will significantly improve the efficiency of the Australian economy. It is deserving of support. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.55 p.m.]: I support the Melbourne-Brisbane inland rail project. I was astounded to hear members opposite trying to change the debate to one about passenger rail services to south-east Queensland and the fact that people do not want to catch passenger rail services to Sydney. I was wondering whether the Hon. Tony Catanzariti could tell us precisely where people do want to catch rail services from, and how long it has been since people have been able to catch a train from Griffith to Narrandera, or elsewhere in his part of the world?

The motion is about a Melbourne to Brisbane freight rail route. Presently much of the mineral and agronomic produce from the regional areas of New South Wales travels by rail, and it should continue to do so. The rail network should be expanded so we can have easier and shorter access to ports from the regions where the products are produced. This would result in cheaper freight costs and the productivity of those industries would be greatly enhanced.

I recently spoke with the residents of the village of Blackmans Flat, which is situated on the Castlereagh Highway in the electorate of Bathurst. Hundreds of coal trucks rumble daily past the front doors of Blackmans Flat at 100 kilometres per hour. The closure of the various branch lines and the announcement by Pacific National that it will be pulling out of grain freight—even though it has extended the service for another 12 months—means that the State's crops must travel by road. For people such as the residents of Blackmans Flat that means hundreds of extra trucks carting grain to the ports daily. The residents of Newcastle will have approximately 500 trucks every day of the year transporting the wheat crop to the port. Issues of that sort should be focused on when talking about completing the Melbourne to Brisbane rail link and having proper links to the other ports along the way, such as Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. There has also been a lot of debate over many years about providing a rail link to the port of Iluka.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox also spoke of the coal project at Ashford, near Inverell. One of the problems with that particular development is the port the coal should to go to. It cannot go through the Hunter because of the Ardglen Tunnel problem and it presently has difficulty getting to Brisbane by rail but completion of the Melbourne to Brisbane link would mean that the coal travelling from Ashford in northern New South Wales would have a very short trip to the Port of Brisbane. I support the motion of the Hon Matthew Mason Cox and I look forward to its receiving the support of all members of the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.59 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion, which relates to the progression of the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project to a full scoping study and, on conclusion of the study, market testing of the project for private sector investment in partnership with government. For the benefit of communities at places such as Parkes and Gilgandra, I draw attention to the contributions of Government members during debate on this motion and in earlier discussions. During this debate some Labor members have suddenly discovered the need to bring transport links between south-east Queensland and the northern rivers of New South Wales into the twenty-first century. It seems that the Australian Labor Party's defeat in the Tweed electorate at the last State election by The Nationals and Mr Geoff Provest has led them to discover Murwillumbah, Byron Bay and Tweed Heads and acknowledge a need to look at the demographics of the area. They have discovered that the population of the Northern Rivers and south-east Queensland is increasing. In fact, it has been increasing since the 1970s. Former Premier of Queensland Mr Beattie left the Carr-Iemma Government in the shade when it came to planning for population growth.

The Hon. Rick Colless: He modelled himself on Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He did, and he has acknowledged that Joh Bjelke-Petersen did a great deal for Queensland and got things done. Mr Beattie learnt a lot from him about putting infrastructure projects in place. New South Wales not only has languished on infrastructure projects; it has rolled infrastructure back. For example, rather than linking Murwillumbah with the Gold Coast, the New South Wales Government cancelled the passenger service between Casino and Murwillumbah. The elimination of that service was a line item in the budget of Mr Egan, a former Treasurer. In light of the cancellation of the service, the electors in the Tweed and the Northern Rivers gave the Government exactly what it deserved.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What did Neville say about that?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He told people to be patient. They were not.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: All comments should be made through the Chair, not debated across the Chamber.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: To the point of order: I have addressed my comments through the Chair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind all members to be mindful of the standing orders. The member may proceed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is interesting that during debate Labor members have talked about the Northern Rivers and south-east Queensland because they seem unable to distinguish between Melbourne and Murwillumbah. I hope that as a result of debate on this motion the education of Labor members continues to improve. The Government's interest in the need for an integrated transport infrastructure in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales is a welcome development. Unfortunately, it has taken many years for it to come to that point. The test will be whether it is in the budget, which will be brought down in the coming weeks.

I look forward to the restoration of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service in the budget. I am hopeful that the scales have fallen from the eyes of Labor members and they have got through to the Treasurer. I hope that Mr Egan's protégé will roll back the Labor Party's devastating withdrawal of the rail service and restore it in the 2008-09 State Budget. If he does, I will be very happy and the first to congratulate him. The Melbourne to Brisbane rail project is most important for the inland parts of the State. One of the main advocates for the project, Mr Everald Compton, was a participant at the 2020 summit. At the summit Mr Compton raised the inland rail project with former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, who chaired one of the sessions. Tim Fischer is a well-known advocate for rail services throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. Fruitful discussions were held at the 2020 summit on the issue.

The current Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Albanese, has made an announcement on a scoping study on the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project, which his State colleagues neglected to mention. I will mention it. Mr Albanese's announcement on a scoping study was the same, word for word, as a media release made last year by the Leader of the National Party and former Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon. Mark Vaile. Mr Albanese simply read out the same media statement, hoping that no-one would notice. We did. I hope that Mr Albanese takes the project forward, despite the negativity of some State Government members, such as the Treasurer and the Minister for Lands, neither of whom has given any comfort to the advocates of the project. I have asked questions in this place on this issue. The Treasurer has pooh-poohed the idea and the Minister for Lands, whose title has something to do with regional development, has nothing positive to say about the project in relation to the development of inland New South Wales. Neither the Minister nor the Treasurer is an enthusiast for the project. The Treasurer seems to run New South Wales, so I suppose he has the numbers.

The Hon. Rick Colless: He runs it into the ground.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: He does run it into the ground. I do not believe we can expect much in the State budget to assist the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project. I will be pleased if it is a special line item in the State budget, as will the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, who moved the motion. All Coalition members will be pleased.

The Hon. Rick Colless: We will be shocked.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: We will be shocked. We get the message when, during debate on a motion that relates to the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project, Government members talk about north-east New South Wales and south-east Queensland. That shows how on track they are! We struggled to figure out which motion they were talking to. It seems they were unable to read the motion in today's notice paper, because it is definitely about the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: We support an integrated transport system.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The Hon. Lynda Voltz has discovered the word "integrated". That was one of the recommendations of the inquiry of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 into the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service. The Director General of the Premier's Department appeared before the committee.

[Interruption]

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind honourable members that interjections are at all times disorderly.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Hear! Hear! When the head of the Premier's Department and coordinator for regional projects came before General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 during its inquiry into this important infrastructure project we asked him whether he could produce, on behalf of the Government, integrated transport documents relating to the North Coast of New South Wales. He said, "There is none." I am glad the Hon. Lynda Voltz mentioned an integrated transport strategy. Mark Vaile as the Federal Minister for Transport and John Anderson as the Leader of the National Party brought forward the need for an integrated transport corridor. I am glad that the Iemma Government is starting to catch onto the words "integrated transport strategy". You never know what you might hear in these debates. I hope they keep up the good work; they might get somewhere in the remaining life of this run-down, off-the-rails Government. I thank my colleague for moving the motion, which I have very much pleasure in supporting.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [4.09 p.m.], in reply: It certainly has been an interesting debate. I particularly thank my colleagues the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Michael Gallacher and the Hon. Jenny Gardiner for their constructive comments and contributions to the motion. They understand the subject matter and the importance of this project not only to this State but also to Australia. It is an important microeconomic reform project that has the potential to deliver significant benefits not only on the economic front but also on the environmental front to the citizens of this State.

Sadly, though, I cannot say the same for the contributions of the Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. Although they were valiant in setting forth into territory they were obviously not familiar with, I believe they were addressing the wrong motion. I will be kind enough to leave it there. One should consider the location of the Murwillumbah to Casino rail line and its main purpose—passenger transport—and the fact that this Labor Government closed the line, which is indicative of the interest of the State Labor Government in rail infrastructure generally. The reality is that the motion was all about the inland rail project, which runs from Melbourne to Brisbane inland through territory with which the Hon. Tony Catanzariti is very familiar, and with which I understand the Hon. Michael Veitch, from whom we did not hear in this debate, is also very familiar. It was a bit disappointing not to hear from a number of Country Labor members on this important infrastructure project, given the rail line runs right through the heart of wide areas they are supposed to represent.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There are no Country Labor members in this House.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: It is a bit of an oxymoron. The Hon. Michael Veitch turns around and shakes his head in shame. It is rather disappointing that the Government did not seek to take part in debate on the motion I moved. The Government's lack of involvement reflects its attitude that rail infrastructure is a bit too hard and that it is looking for a lead from the Federal Government. It is good news that Infrastructure Australia has the project within its purview and that the Federal Minister has given his blessing to the scoping study going ahead. As I mentioned earlier, we were very concerned that was not going to be the case.

Although the Commonwealth Government has had its road to Damascus moment, the New South Wales Government seems to be limping along, relieved that the matter has been taken off the desk and that it will not have anything substantive to do until the scoping study is released. At that time we will just see more of the same. That is the sad reality in respect of infrastructure and investment in rail. Indeed, it is the sad reality in respect of investment interest in all sorts of infrastructure, particularly in country New South Wales. I need not go into the CityRail links; I would be here all afternoon if I did. The Government's performance in respect of investment in railway lines in urban and metropolitan parts of the State has been absolutely shambolic.

Suffice it to say, we look forward to seeing the report of the scoping study when it is released. We hope the report will be promoted heavily by the Commonwealth Government and that the New South Wales Government will get on board, see the case for private investment and the case for building this very important piece of infrastructure, and move it along at the rate of knots to ensure that those economic benefits accrue to the people of New South Wales and the nation.

This is a continuation of the failure of the New South Wales Government to plan—we have a plan to fail. We have a State Plan that basically gives the whole concept of the inland rail project short shrift and simply refuses to conduct any analysis of the investment needs of country communities, except in a political sense to promote areas in which the Government believes it has a chance to win a seat at the next election. The State Plan is a sham. Its comments and failure to deal adequately with investment in country New South Wales is testament to that. I commend the motion to the House. The Opposition looks forward to the completion of the scoping study and to the next vital steps on the path to seeing the inland rail project—a very important microeconomic reform—come to fruition.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.