 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: RAIL LINKS WITH EASTERN STATES
The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I move:
That the 35th report of the committee on rail links with the eastern states be noted.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to also support this motion. I think the Hon. John Dawkins has covered the issues quickly and has covered them well, but I will quickly go over them myself. In moving for this inquiry to be carried out, I suppose I had a personal concern that we had put such an emphasis on the Adelaide-Darwin line, which the Democrats have always been very strong supporters of, that perhaps we had not given enough thought about the links to the east, and there is no doubt that historically the rail links to the east have been substandard, and I think just how substandard they were became quite apparent as our inquiry continued. But I must say also that I was heartened by the amount of progress that does appear to have been made. For instance, I think the time taken between Adelaide and Melbourne over just the last couple of years has been decreased by some two hours, and I believe that about another two hours can be cut off that trip, still using conventional equipment but just by improving the quality of the line itself.
In moving for the inquiry I had also noted that there had been some suggestion that there may be some value in pursuing an eastern route around the Adelaide Hills, rather than the current route, but I note that one of the recommendations did not come out in support of that and, indeed, I do not recall a single witness suggesting that such an alternative route should be adopted. It does not mean, I suppose, that at a future time we may not want to reassess that for some reason, but certainly the ERD Committee had no recommendation made along that line at all.
The Hon. T.G. Roberts: The mayor of Sedan.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The mayor of Sedan did not appear. In terms of the route between Adelaide and Melbourne, clearly, the greatest problems have been over the border. In fact, the South Australian line, by comparison, has been good, particularly once you go over the Adelaide Hills. Between the Adelaide Hills and the border it has been extremely good, but the line between the border and Melbourne was appalling, and indeed the most important work that needs to happen even today is probably still east of the border, in terms of getting maximum benefit for travel time and therefore competitiveness and cost of the overall route.
However, within South Australia and the Adelaide Hills clearly work needs to be done in relation to reducing cross-looping, minimising curves and, if there is to be double stacking, the height of the tunnels needs to be increased. I rather suspect, from what the evidence was saying, the depth needs to be increased. I do not think they were suggesting that they would actually dig up but that they would dig down. Under the current system, even with single stacking the load is carried much lower. I suspect that double stacking would not be as high as it was a couple of years ago because the configuration of trains has changed.
There is work to be done in the Adelaide hills-significant amounts of money need to be spent. In the long term that will save both time and money and make the route more competitive. This work will need to be done, but the greater urgency appears to be in the Victorian section of the Adelaide-Melbourne route.
Regarding routes to the eastern states, for a long time there were railway lines running to Mount Gambier and Millicent which also went to Heywood and on to the Victorian system. Unfortunately, the lines from Wolseley to Mount Gambier, Millicent and Heywood are the wrong gauge and have been isolated from the rest of the system. No trains can now run on the main system through Australia and onto those lines. The committee formed the view that standardisation of those lines needs to happen.
Today, the minister in charge of water resources delivered a ministerial statement on the availability of water in this state, stressing that half the available water, most of which is unused, is still in the South-East. If we are serious about the further growth of South Australia as a food state, I think much of that activity will have to happen in the South-East, and I suggest that not having a railway line will be a major impediment. Whilst a certain amount of fresh produce might be sent out by air freight, not many 747s are landing in Mount Gambier now.
With the advent of the Adelaide to Darwin railway line, if the people of the South-East can load a container at Mount Gambier and it can go all the way to Darwin, that will give them a significant competitive advantage. Conversely, if they cannot do that, I think a competitive disadvantage for the South-East would be created despite the obvious advantages of the South-East in terms of available water and climate.
I think it is very short sighted of the government not to put money into the South-East. The state government is making a significant contribution to the Adelaide-Darwin railway line, but its commitment to the South-East is piffling in comparison. I strongly urge the government to reassess whether it should make a commitment to upgrading infrastructure to make the line useable. In the first instance, it does not have to be a fast line but it needs to be useable. I understand that to make the line useable would not involve major expenditure. It would involve replacing not all of the sleepers but a certain percentage of them, and the gap between the rails would need to be altered. This investment should be made; it is long overdue.
The committee also recommends further investigation of the standardisation of the Pinnaroo to Ouyen line. I think it was felt that that would provide an option for some exports to come out of western Victoria to the port of Adelaide. For instance, grain might travel in that direction.
I might add that I think there could be another benefit. If, for instance, there was a derailment on the Adelaide-Melbourne line before the line to Pinnaroo departs, an alternative route would be available. Sometimes derailments put a track out of commission for a couple of days, and that creates a competitive disadvantage for rail. If you have duplication of line, which effectively the standardisation of the Pinnaroo to Ouyen line would achieve, that would create a significant insurance policy as well as the more direct benefits that we might hope to extract.
The committee thinks that the arrangements for grain transfer at Port Adelaide need to be improved as soon as possible. There is still not a level playing field between rail and road. For decades, governments have tended to tax rail heavily, particularly through fuel tax, without putting money back in. In comparison, freight movement on public roads has been heavily subsidised by government and cross-subsidised by other road users. There has not been a level playing field. If governments want to talk about competition, that level playing field should be established.
My understanding of the GST arrangements as they have finally emerged from the parliament is that there has been some improvement in the position of rail relative to road, particularly as a consequence of the intervention by the Democrats. However, I do not believe that a level playing field has been established. That issue should be pursued with vigour. At the end of the day, it is in South Australia's best interests as an export state to have the cheapest possible transport out of Adelaide and the rest of the state, and that will happen only if we have genuine competition. At this stage, we do not have genuine competition between rail and road.
There was some concern that National Rail has a significant surplus of rolling stock in storage. Some members of the committee more than others were extremely concerned about that. A big issue which the Minister for Transport needs to tackle as a matter of urgency is the question of an intermodal terminal. Highly successful rail transport relies upon an intermodal terminal.
There is no question that we will end up with one, but the question is where it will be situated. The further it is situated away from the centre of the city the greater the truck transport costs that we will be left with, the greater the inconvenience, and the less freight that will then go on to rail. If we are to have a competitive rail system, we will need an intermodal terminal located as centrally as possible.
I must say that the vicinity-and I stress `the vicinity'-of Dry Creek is the closest area that is likely to be suitable. Some parts of Dry Creek appear to have been precluded by some agreement with the developers of Mawson Lakes, but I find it hard to believe that in the general vicinity of Dry Creek there is no land that can be used. If that is so, the government may have to reassess what is happening in that area. It is unacceptable that we do not have a proper intermodal terminal sufficiently centrally located to make rail as competitive as possible.
One of the more surprising recommendations of the committee relates to a Melbourne to Brisbane rail link. The committee recommends that South Australia offers support, even if it is just lobbying at a national level, because it believes that a Melbourne to Brisbane rail link is in our best interests. A number of witnesses suggested strongly that a Melbourne to Brisbane rail link should run through Parkes where an intermodal terminal is already being established to handle road traffic emanating from Sydney. It would then go on to rail from that point.
That intermodal terminal at Parkes would become significant with the Melbourne-Brisbane rail link operating as well, and it is likely that, as a consequence, it will lead to a significant increase in the amount of traffic that is likely to emanate from the eastern states towards South Australia. We would then have a link from Parkes to South Australia which would link into the Adelaide to Darwin line.
Several witnesses believe that that would be of significant benefit to South Australia and that it would boost traffic on the Adelaide-Darwin line and therefore make it more competitive. We are not offering support for a line from Melbourne all the way to Darwin. I would have to doubt the economics of that given that a line already exists as far as Alice Springs. Much of the distance has already been covered. There is already a line between Parkes and the Adelaide- Alice Springs line. The amount of additional line necessary-
The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It's straight lines, too.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes-would be much less. I think the eastern states eventually should see the benefit of the Adelaide to Darwin line, that they stand to benefit from that line; and we should also see that a line between Melbourne and Brisbane will not only enhance rail generally but actually enhance rail within South Australia and from South Australia to Darwin.
The final recommendation is to look at the tourism opportunities for rail. There have already been a couple of interesting operations, the most obvious in South Australia at this stage being the rail line to the Barossa Valley. It is unfortunate that we lost the line to Clare. Frankly, I think that we will rue the day. Clare now has a nice walking and riding trail. I suspect that the loss of a rail link to the Clare Valley will be greatly regretted even if it is to take another decade or two before the regret is fully expressed. Let us not repeat that mistake elsewhere in South Australia. Once a line is ripped up, replacement is very expensive. Any line that reasonably and not necessarily in the next year or two but in the foreseeable future might have tourism potential really should be given a chance to remain in place for the time being. I support the motion.
See Sandra Kanck's News Release on the issue of rail links for the SE: 22 October 1999
