The Senate
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Inland Rail: derailed from the start - August 2021 © Commonwealth of Australia
ISBN 978-1-76093-272-5 (Printed Version) ISBN 978-1-76093-272-5 (HTML Version)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License.
The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/.
Printed by by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra
Chair
Senator Glenn Sterle ALP, WA
Deputy Chair
Senator Susan McDonald NAT, QLD
Members
Senator Alex Gallacher ALP, SA
Senator Malarndirri McCarthy ALP, NT
Senator Gerard Rennick LP, QLD
Senator Peter Whish-Wilson AG, TAS
Senator Janet Rice (until 6.10.20) AG, VIC Senator Nita Green (from 12.6.20 until 16.3.21) ALP, QLD
Participating Members
Senator Pauline Hanson PHON, QLD
Senator Malcolm Roberts PHON, QLD Senator Janet Rice AG, VIC
Senator Murray Watt ALP, QLD
Senator Anthony Chisholm ALP, QLD
Senator Nita Green ALP, QLD
Secretariat
Gerry McInally, Committee Secretary Sarah Redden, Principal Research Officer
Joshua Wrest, Acting Principal Research Officer Trish Carling, Senior Research Officer
Michael Fisher, Research Officer Jason See, Administrative Officer
Lewis Tremayne, Administrative Officer
PO Box 6100 Telephone: (02) 6277 3511
Parliament House Fax: (02) 6277 5811
CANBERRA ACT 2600 Email: rrat.sen@aph.gov.au
iii
Members................................................................................................................................. iii
Foreword................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Recommendations...................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1—Introduction and background............................................................................. 1
Chapter 2—Inland Rail business case, cost and competitiveness................................... 13
Chapter 3—Port and intermodal connectivity.............................................................. ...... 47
Chapter 4—Stakeholder engagement and consultation.................................................... 81
Chapter 5—Inland Rail alignment and key concerns - Queensland............................. 105
Chapter 6—Inland Rail alignment and key concerns - NSW & Victoria..................... . 139
Additional comments by Coalition senators................................................................ ..... 169
Dissenting report on Inland Rail from Senator Pauline Hanson............................. ...... 173
Appendix 1—Submissions and additional information............................................... ... 177
Appendix 2—Public hearings and witnesses.............................................................. ..... 187
\v
The committee is generally supportive of the Inland Rail project. Its construction has the potential to provide significant benefit to rural, regional and urban communities
— enabling a more efficient movement of freight across Australia and further diversification of the nation’s freight infrastructure. However, throughout the
inquiry the committee has heard a number of fundamental concerns in key areas of the project.
Business case
The project is underpinned by Inland
Rail’s 2015 business case. The original estimated
cost
of
Inland
Rail
was
$4.7
billion,
which
later
became
$9.9
billion.
The Australian Government has
now committed over $14.3 billion to the Inland Rail project, which is
governed by an out-of-date business case and undermined by predictions that
the project will exceed $20 billion.
It is apparent to the committee that the original costings and allocated budget for Inland Rail was inadequate from the outset, and is a failure on behalf of the Australian Government and the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to appropriately prepare, plan and implement Inland Rail. Whether Inland Rail’s 2015 business case remains valid in light of the substantial increase in capital required for its completion is a key question. It is the committee’s view that this substantive increase in the cost of Inland Rail alone warrants a review and update of the 2015 business case.
The rationale for a business case review and update is further justified by the recent revelations that end-of-service parameters in Queensland are yet to be determined, and the appropriate alignments for some projects are yet to be finalised. The committee continues to be confused as to how a business case can be relied upon if the end point of the Inland Rail, and therefore the costs involved, are still to be decided.
The committee’s concern about the cost of Inland Rail, driven by warnings that further cost blowouts may occur as the Inland Rail project progresses, warrants a dedicated oversight mechanism to be established throughout the project’s construction.
vii
24-hour journey time
The business case itself is premised on a 24-hour journey time between Melbourne and Brisbane to make it competitive with other modes of freight transportation.
The Australian Government’s decision
to establish a strict parameter of a 24-hour end-to-end journey time for
Inland Rail has had a significant adverse impact on the communities along
the proposed alignment. Whilst it is apparent that a 24-hour preference was
made by business stakeholders (including rail, freight and logistics
companies)
as
a
means
to
make
Inland
Rail
competitive,
it
has
significantly
restricted the ARTC’s ability
to consider alternative alignments.
This impact is clearly
demonstrated throughout the report, which reveals that the interests of
rural, regional and urban communities throughout Victoria, NSW and
Queensland have been sidelined by an arbitrary time threshold established by
the Australian
Government.
Future terminal strategy for Brisbane and South East Queensland
It is the committee’s view that the management of the end-points of the Inland Rail project in Brisbane has been unacceptable. The committee cannot understand how the Inland Rail project’s intermodal terminal locations in Brisbane are yet to be determined, especially when the original location (Acacia Ridge) formed the basis of the 2015 business case, and the construction of the Inland Rail project has already commenced. It is a failure of the Australian and Queensland governments for this uncertainty to remain, despite over a decade of investigation into the Inland Rail corridor.
In the committee’s view, Bromelton provides the best greenfield site for future expansion and a future logistics and freight precinct for the Brisbane and Gold Coast urban areas. The business case needs to be completed, independently reviewed and publicly released. These should then form the basis for strategic freight plans, and business cases for other new terminals, as well as identifying options for private and public investment.
The committee also sees value in further consideration of an Inland Rail link to the Port of Gladstone as a means to further diversify Australia’s access to international markets and to enhance regional Queensland’s economy. The proposed Gladstone link, existing alongside the Toowoomba to Brisbane corridor, could potentially resolve many of the current limitations of Inland Rail in Brisbane, offering a viable alternative pathway for coal exports and reducing the freight import-export demand on Brisbane. A Port of Gladstone connection provides an opportunity to diversify and future-proof the movement of freight across Queensland, and will support regional Queensland’s economy.
viii
The committee supports the Inland Rail linking to the Port of Brisbane. However, it has serious concerns about whether this is currently achievable. The committee questions the rationale that the existing rail infrastructure between Acacia Ridge and the Port of Brisbane will adequately meet the projected demands of Inland Rail until 2040–41.
Passenger network
The committee is cognisant that any passenger network must operate alongside Inland Rail. As demonstrated by the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton project, the movement of freight by rail is severely hindered when sharing a rail corridor with the passenger network. Any future rail pathway between Toowoomba and Brisbane must be designed to ensure the seamless movement of freight without delay is maintained.
The committee is supportive of the Australian and Queensland governments developing a business case for a passenger rail network alongside Inland Rail. The committee will remain engaged with the development of this business case and ensure the intention to future-proof this alignment is maintained. To foster ongoing transparency and community understanding of the status of the passenger network and how the network will operate alongside Inland Rail’s freight network, the committee calls for the release of the business case upon its completion.
Community engagement
Despite the committee’s support for Inland Rail, it holds real concern that the economic benefit may not be fully realised by many of the communities along the proposed alignment and recognises more needs to be done to garner broader support for the project.
There is an unavoidable impact on some communities and landholders of major infrastructure projects like Inland Rail. It is therefore imperative that those impacted are adequately consulted and their concerns mitigated where possible, and with payment of appropriate compensation, to ensure there is a collective benefit gained by the project. This inquiry has revealed significant shortcomings in the ARTC’s efforts to meaningfully engage with communities and landholders along the proposed alignment of Inland Rail. These failures have significantly undermined public trust in the ARTC and its management of Australia’s largest rail infrastructure project.
ix
List of Recommendations
2.61 The committee recommends the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee self refers an ongoing inquiry for oversight of the Inland Rail project.
2.66 The committee recommends the Australian Government commissions an independent review and update of Inland Rail’s 2015 business case that:
? is an accurate reflection of current and anticipated Inland Rail expenditure and end-of-service offerings;
? includes an assessment of all the proposed routes from Toowoomba to the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone, along with alternative routes subject to ongoing public scrutiny (particularly the Narromine to Narrabri and Border to Gowrie projects);
? includes a sensitivity analysis on the impact of any proposed changes to Australia’s coastal shipping arrangements;
? is developed in accordance with Infrastructure Australia’s guidelines and for Infrastructure Australia to review the updated business case; and
? is made publicly available, and provided to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.
2.97 The committee recommends the Australian Government ceases any efforts to restructure coastal trading that may provide foreign-flagged ships with a competitive advantage over other modes of transport or disrupts Australia’s freight supply chain.
2.100 The committee recommends the Australian and state governments, in partnership with industry, integrate the Inland Rail project and associated intermodal terminals into the principles of the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy, including:
? the development and adoption the national urban freight planning principles; and
? the ongoing and expanded use of the Transport Network Strategic Investment Tool across the Inland Rail project to inform intermodal investment decisions.
xi
2.101 The committee recommends that the Australian Government supports efforts to ensure intermodal freight planning applications demonstrate how intermodal terminals are linked to freight rail infrastructure, including Inland Rail.
2.102 The committee recommends Infrastructure and Transport Ministers, as part of the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy, establish an Inland Rail working group to review and determine possible regulatory reforms to improve competitiveness, innovation, efficiency and use of Inland Rail.
3.21 The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments publicly release the business case study of a dedicated freight line to the Port of Brisbane upon its completion.
3.35 The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments, in partnership with local governments, industry representatives and other stakeholders, conduct a thorough investigation into an extension of the Inland Rail project to the Port of Gladstone.
3.62 The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments, in partnership with local resident groups, local governments, trucking and other freight and logistics companies, establish an Acacia Ridge and Bromelton working group to conduct an audit of existing road infrastructure of Acacia Ridge and other proposed intermodal locations in south east Queensland.
3.69 The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments publicly release, upon its completion, the business case study into south east Queensland’s Inland Rail intermodal terminals.
3.71 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation, in partnership with the Queensland Government, ensures the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton project is reviewed to the same level of transparency,
xii
stakeholder consultation and participation as other coordinated projects in Queensland.
3.79 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Australian and Queensland governments prioritise the development of the Inland Rail Bromelton intermodal terminal.
3.91 The committee recommends the Australian, Queensland and Victorian governments, in partnership with the ports of Melbourne and Brisbane, consider measures to implement and upgrade Inland Rail’s intermodal freight terminals to facilitate an international freight capability.
3.99 The committee recommends the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications enhances transparency and accountability of the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program by publishing:
? the selection criteria and assessments made by the department; and
? successful proposals that may result in material changes and/or additions to the Inland Rail project.
3.100 In addition, the committee recommends the department ensure the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program interlinks with NSW infrastructure under the Special Activities Precincts, such as those already connected to Inland Rail at key regional consolidation centres such as Moree, Narrabri and Parkes.
3.102 The committee recommends the Australian Government supports state and local governments efforts to prioritise and expedite planning approvals for intermodal terminals that have clearly demonstrated a capacity to efficiently link Inland Rail to other key rail and road freight routes.
4.57 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation engages an independent mediator to facilitate an improved working relationship with the NSW Farmers Association and the Country Women’s Association of NSW.
xiii
4.59 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation fosters improved local government consultation through regional forums aimed at generating community support for Inland Rail.
4.61 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation conducts biennial independent reviews of its stakeholder engagement and consultation processes to ensure relevancy is maintained throughout all stages of the Inland Rail project.
4.63 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation, in partnership with the Australian and state governments, establish a broader consultation and engagement framework to address community concerns for matters that extend beyond, but are interconnected to, the Inland Rail project.
4.65 The committee recommends the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Australian Government establish a key industry stakeholder group to formalise ongoing discussions with industry about the Inland Rail project specifically.
5.54 The committee recommends that the Australian Rail Track Corporation addresses all issues identified by the Queensland independent flood panel’s findings and ensures all modelling and design issues identified are rectified as a matter of priority.
5.55 The committee recommends any lessons learnt from the Queensland independent flood panel’s findings are used to inform all floodplain modelling across the entire Inland Rail project.
5.88 The committee recommends the Australian and Queensland governments publicly release, upon its completion, the business case study into a future passenger rail pathway between Toowoomba and the Brisbane rail network.
xiv
5.91 The committee recommends the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications ensures a requirement is applied to the Public-Private-Partnership agreement that local suppliers, when practicable, are utilised throughout Inland Rail’s construction.
6.67 The committee recommends the Australian and NSW governments establish an independent international flood and hydrologist panel to conduct a review of the flood modelling and design features of the Inland Rail project in NSW. This panel should consider the findings of pre-existing reviews, including the findings of the WRM Water and Environment Independent Review of the Flood Modelling: Narromine to Narrabri Inland Rail Project.
6.69 The committee recommends the Australian Government establishes an independent comparative review of the current Narromine to Narrabri alignment with the proposed Dubbo-Coonamble line and alternative routes around Narrabri, taking into account both the impacts and potential broader economic benefits for regional economies and communities.
xv