HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAILWAYS (OPERATIONS AND ACCESS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 May 2010.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:16): I confirm that I am the lead speaker for the opposition for this bill. Given that there is a consensus, there will be no need to go into committee. It is possible that, depending upon their availability, other members may choose to speak, most likely the member for Schubert, who, no doubt, will talk passionately about the Barossa rail. I recognise that this bill was introduced on 26 May. A briefing was provided to me on 1 June, and I am thankful to Mr Pat Gerace from the minister's officer and the DTEI staff members who assisted with that briefing.

I must admit that, when I read the second reading contribution of the minister, it became obvious to me that this is something we would accept quite quickly. When we sat down for the briefing, I wondered why we were talking, because we had very few questions to pose. It is only a matter of acknowledging that this bill ensures that there is an opportunity for investment to occur and for surety on rail costs to be in place.

My understanding of the bill is that it relates to major intrastate rail only and therefore predominantly would be related to grain transport. It certainly does not affect ARTC (Australian Rail Track Corporation) lines or, indeed, areas which indentures cover. It stems from February 2006 COAG discussions about the need to review this. ESCOSA and the Emergency Services Commission were involved in the review. I am pleased to recognise that consultation was quite extensive with the industry.

I put on the record that the inquiry by ESCOSA into the access regime commenced in February 2009. They received submissions to the paper from ABB Grain, Asciano, Genesee & Wyoming Australia, Gypsum Resources Australia, Penrice Soda Products and Western Plains Resources. Following the consideration of these submissions, ESCOSA released its draft inquiry report to which four additional submissions were made by ABB Grain, Asciano, Genesee & Wyoming Australia and Penrice Soda Products.

At a meeting with some rail operators after this bill was introduced, I met with Genesee & Wyoming. I asked their position on the bill. They certainly indicated their support for it. Consequently, the paper put to the joint party of the opposition recommend that it be supported without amendment. I recognise that rail in Australia has a rather interesting history. From what I am advised, the genesis of the different gauges results from whether it was supplied by English companies, Irish companies or Scottish companies. I have also been told by a person who is somewhat fascinated with rail that, in the history of Australia, there have been some 24 different gauges, which I find amazing.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister indicates that he wants to get rid of some infrastructure, I think, that relates to this.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is it?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Peterborough.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Peterborough, at Steamtown, yes—the roundhouse.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It's the biggest in the southern hemisphere.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. The minister refers to the roundhouse building at Peterborough which is part of the Steamtown operations. I worked at Peterborough for two years so I have been to that facility. I recognise the good people there who still try to promote the rail history of that community, too. Sadly, they are no longer able to operate on the rails.

This bill relates, as I understand it, though, more to grain transport, and that is an important issue for this state. Certainly, many of the producers of fine grain who export and derive an income for themselves and, importantly the state and the nation, rely on the fact that there is an efficient method of getting their product to the ports where it can be loaded and sold to overseas countries. So, having this network in place, with a level of charges that provides opportunities for it to be used as a transport option instead of it having to be put on truck and therefore adding to the freight movements on our road network, is important.

We support the bill. Other people, no doubt, will speak on this. I can confirm that it is a relatively simple one, and I hope it has swift passage through the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:21): Yet again, the member for Goyder got it right and, yes, I certainly would appreciate having an input into this. Anything to do with railways, in all of my time here, has certainly attracted my attention, because I am a very avid supporter of rail. It is certainly sad to see all the rail corridors we still have around the state that are not being used. I can see a time when we are going to see a lot more activity on our rails, as we do with our trams.

Whoever would have believed that in 1955—and I can remember that—we were pulling up the tram lines, and who would have believed that here we are putting them back again? I think the same thing can be said of our rail system in South Australia. The system is there and we have an excellent network remaining, some of them not used, that we should be allowing access to.

I am pleased that this bill, and we certainly support it, raises the matter in relation to national standards, right across. It has been a problem we have had right through the whole country where, crossing the border, we have had different standards and rules, and different regulations apply. Now, through this, we will have a consistent national system of economic regulation for nationally significant infrastructure (including our rail) to implement efficiencies, based on the recommendations following an inquiry conducted by our own Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA). Most of the lines we are discussing here are those used primarily to transport grain—and, of course, today, that is by ABB, now Viterra. Again, I declare an interest as a grower, and also my brother is a director of Viterra.

The member for Goyder also mentioned that Penrice holdings operates on one of these rail services. Every day there is a train up and back to the Barossa, and it goes right past my office. I could walk out the back and catch the train, if there was a seat on it for me. Again, I will keep batting away.

I had lunch on Friday with Mr John Geber, who now owns the wine train outright. I note the Minister for Transport is here, and I am pleased that he is. Can I say this, and I am not being mischievous or political: I thank the minister for receiving some students from the Barossa the other day. I am very pleased that he found the time to listen to them. Can I say that I had nothing to do with anything they did or said, but apparently you answered their questions very well, and the mayor reported to me that you were a perfect gentleman; so, thank you very much.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: They didn't get a yes but they got a lot of well-explained noes.

Mr VENNING: Irrespective, I have not seen the result of that, but I will, I have no doubt. I did not send them, honestly, but I am pleased that you gave them time and heard what they had to say.

In relation to the regulations across the state, I can't help but again raise with the minister Mr Geber's strong endeavour to run again the wine train. I have a sniff in the air that something may be happening, minister. Can I smell it? Something may be happening. I cannot understand what the problem is, because—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I've got lots of trains and that's not one of them.

Mr VENNING: He owns the train. If he is to run the train, I believe the only problem is guaranteed access and then, of course, public liability if something happens and he runs into something.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, it is, but I'm sure most of this could be overcome if we had a desire to do this. Minister Laidlaw did. Remember? We ran this train. It was running successfully and profitably until 11 September, SARS, and all the rest of it, and it was a great success. I know I am batting hard for the Barossa hospital, but I am also batting hard for this rail. This is an easy one, because the railway is already there. If they can run a 30,000 tonne stone train twice a day, surely they can run a rail car. They cannot run a rail car? I cannot believe that.

Again, I have not given up. I keep pushing the case. I am sure that the minister will agree. I am sure that he will be on the first train, because he is also a person who knows good wine from poor wine, and this is the wine train. I am sure the minister will put the train back on the rail and be on the first train. It will be a great ceremonial occasion, and the minister would not miss it for quids.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, it does happen. The reforms aim to reduce the regulatory uncertainty and compliant costs for the owners, users and investors—most importantly, the investors, because we need people to invest in our rail infrastructure, we certainly do. There is no reason why our rail system cannot be world-efficient. The main lines have all been recently upgraded, apart from the one up through Broken Hill, which does not need a lot of work on it; but the main line, particularly the Adelaide, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla line, which is in excellent condition for taking heavy freight. Why we cannot run a passenger rail car to the Iron Triangle, I do not know.

The minister has before him a report from the ERD committee. It is a fantastic report, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I recommend it to you? Three professors from the Adelaide University were prominent in putting it together. We are waiting for a response from the minister. I hope he is going to respond very shortly, because the matter was raised before the election. We said that we would wait 12 weeks after the election, and that time has well and truly gone. Minister, I hope you will respond to this report—he is not listening—because it has some very good stuff in it.

This report talks about how we subsidise passenger rail in the city of Adelaide. I cannot remember the figure exactly, but it is fairly high. It is about $170 to $180 per travelling passenger in the city, yet, in the country the minister will not run trains because they will not make a profit. I have to say that is rather hypocritical, because you cannot have one rule for one half of society and something different for the other half. The minister is definitely not listening, but I hope he will respond to that report—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can actually hear him, and he is talking about trains, if that is any consolation to you.

Mr VENNING: Is he? Okay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr VENNING: He is talking about trains?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: No, I'm not finished.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he genuinely is chatting about trains. I can hear him.

Mr VENNING: I was just saying, minister, you have before you a report from the ERD committee, which is awaiting your response. It is a very good report, and I know that you will climb all over it.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: But it doesn't have anything to do with this.

Mr VENNING: No, it's about railways. It is railway options; it's railways—trains. I will await that report with a lot of enthusiasm. Can I commend Penrice. They have been through a bit of a rough spin lately with the quarry. That is all getting fixed and it is now fully transparent. They are fixing the problem in relation to the quarry in the Barossa Valley. They run the stone train every day, and they do it very well. They now, I understand, are cooperating, minister, with any operator that wishes to run on that line, because they do hold the lease on the line, through ESCOSA. This is what this bill is all about. They are happy to meet third-party people and cooperate. They have not in the past, because they only run the one train, so their timetable would not be full enough to allow any other train to run. So, we are making progress here.

I know the minister can be positive. I am optimistic—nothing is impossible—that we will eventually see some light at the end of the tunnel. I commend this bill to the house. I also note the access roads should be extended to certain existing railway infrastructure, particularly to accommodate future mining developments. Some of these rails are still there; some are empty corridors. I believe that, should a company wish to access rail for their produce, they should be able to do that.

I know that the Burra line is still there, and I know that there is some interest. One company has expressed interest in looking at Burra again, and I really do hope that it does not get near the heritage area. The company looking is Phoenix Mining. So, you never know what can happen in relation to these things, and I just hope that all these things can be pulled together. Talking about ABB, I also note that today is the last day of our long-vaunted Barley Marketing Act. I understand it falls off the Notice Paper tonight; automatically, it is gone. That is just a bit of history I thought I would give on that one.

Again, I commend this bill and commend Genesee & Wyoming and all those people who run rail services in this country. Anyone wanting to run a rail service ought to be encouraged to do so, particularly on the West Coast, where we have a narrow gauge system. There is a great opportunity for someone to get over there and operate a rail system. I am sure the government—even this minister—would be there and say okay, and would, hopefully, give them all the same rights. I still live in hope that we see the return of a passenger rail system for our regional people, certainly to Port Pirie, because I hope that one day, before I finish in this place, I can do as my father did before me and catch the train to parliament.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:31): I too rise to speak to the Railways (Operations and Access) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. I note the comments from the member for Goyder acknowledging that we had 24 gauges of rail, which was just ridiculous. Just look at the three most common gauges: narrow, standard and broad gauge. It became evident many years ago that that was two too many gauges in that instance.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: We need one gauge; absolutely. It was interesting to note that the Melbourne to Adelaide line used to be a broad gauge line. That was standardised with the Melbourne to Adelaide rail standardisation, or the MARS scheme, which took place in the early nineties. I happened to be a contractor on that scheme, and it was excellent work.

Mr Venning: Conflict of interest!

Mr PEDERICK: No; I acknowledge that it was a nice bit of work to pick up and add on to a bit of farm income. It was very interesting work, actually. I may digress, but we had a machine to undo the clips holding down the line so that they could be picked up and moved further into the concrete sleeper. This was essentially a maintenance machine. There were two of us operating it—a couple of farm lads—and it did not take long for it to blow up. It intrigued me, coming from—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I should say that it broke down, to clarify that for the Hansard. It was interesting to note, coming from a self-employed background where if something broke you just fixed it—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: With fencing wire.

Mr PEDERICK: Probably with fencing wire, in response to the Minister for Transport. That has been done in more cases than one, to get something going with a bit of No. 8 fencing wire, I can assure you. What happened was that if the machine broke down you just jumped off and the union-staffed repair van was just up the track a bit. You sat down and they came up and fixed it. If you were energetic you could have used the hand tools, which we did for a while, but—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Did you have one of these things?

Mr PEDERICK: No; I did not have one of those little trolleys. I cannot remember now what they were called.

Mr Venning: Kalamazoo.

Mr PEDERICK: A kalamazoo; I did not operate one of those. The little machine we had was, I think, powered by a Honda motor and went steadily along the track. I do commend the guys who worked on that project for the manual labour involved. The steel line was pulled up in midair, and there was a lot of bending down, turning things around, shifting rubber matting, etc. It was backbreaking work. Thankfully they kept me on the unclipping machine for most of it, because it was very hard for a big bloke like me bending down to sleeper level. But I digress.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Maybe.

Mr Venning: You should try it now; it might do you good.

Mr PEDERICK: No, my back would still ache. It just goes to show the problem when you have different gauges in a rail system. We are steadily—although it is going to be a long time yet—getting things back to perhaps a standard gauge all over the state. I note the narrow gauge line on the far West Coast. They had a big harvest last year and Viterra, formerly ABB Grain, had a lot of grain to handle over there, as in other parts of the state. Obviously, there are speed limitations with that line, but it is a line that I believe was put in in a hurry—that year's secondhand rail—and I guess the narrow gauge was the cheapest option. Rail is certainly something that will need to be upgraded over time to keep up with the growing demands, especially with more people accessing the use of it.

I note that the intention of this bill is to provide a consistent national system of economic regulation for nationally significant infrastructure, including the railway, obviously, and to implement efficiencies into the act, with these efficiencies based on recommendations, following an inquiry conducted by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia.

The ESCOSA inquiry into the access regime commenced in February 2009 with the release of an issues paper for public consultation. ESCOSA received submissions from ABB Grain, Asciano, Genesee & Wyoming Australia, Gypsum Resources Australia, Penrice Soda Products and Western Plains Resources.

Genesee & Wyoming Australia expressed concerns within its submission, highlighting that the issue of return on investment needed to be addressed in relation to economic efficiency. Penrice Soda Products highlighted the need for increased transparency in the form in which price information is being provided by the access provider to access seekers.

Just briefly, regarding Genesee & Wyoming, it operates lines throughout the Hammond electorate. In 2006, with the centenary of rail through the Mallee, the Pinnaroo line, it was very good of Genesee & Wyoming to get on board and run a special train out to Pinnaroo, and then pull up at all the stops heading back to Tailem Bend so that every rail siding had their celebration with the communities that have relied on that rail for 100 years. Genesee & Wyoming made a major contribution to the Mallee celebrating the centenary of rail in the region.

I note also, under mining, that ESCOSA expressed in the draft inquiry report that the access regime should be reviewed to ensure it is flexible and robust enough to respond to increased mining activities. It was pleasing to see that for quite a while Australian Zircon was utilising the Tailem Bend to Loxton line, with the mine being situated at Mindarie, on the edge—with the redistribution—of Hammond and Chaffey, but firmly in Hammond when the mine opened up. It was good to see them using containers to shift the Zircon sands. It is a bit of a pity that mine is in mothballs at the moment, but let us hope that it can get active again soon and promote more employment in the Mallee as time goes on.

We need access to rail by all stakeholders. I note, as the member for Schubert noted, Viterra, who has taken over ABB Grain, and that it is so much better that they are utilising rail as much as possible. It keeps trucks off roads. Having points like Tailem Bend in my electorate, where if it is made advantageous for the growers to deliver there to a strategic point, it is better to deliver grain there, instead of having all the semi-trailers and B-doubles heading into Adelaide, down Portrush Road and around to the Port.

I have done that trip a few times in a semi and it is fairly daunting, especially if you try to come down the hills one gear too high. You soon realise that it is not worth it, with smoking brakes. There is nothing surer than that you need to be coming down a hill in the same gear as if you had to climb it. I digress once again, but I support the bill and hope for its speedy passage through the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:40): I was called away for a few unexpected meetings, so I am not quite as organised as I would like to be, but I do still greatly appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in support of this bill.

From my perspective, representing the electorate of Stuart, this is a very important matter. Peterborough, Terowie and Port Augusta, which really are the heart of Stuart, have a very proud rail history and have benefitted from, and also suffered from, efficiencies over the last couple of decades, but certainly with regard to industry, state and national benefits, more broadly, efficiency in this industry is what we have to seek.

This bill is about quite a few things, but from my perspective it is essentially about improved efficiency in the intrastate rail network. Again, from the perspective of Stuart, that largely interlocks with grain transport. That is probably the most important issue for Stuart and many of the other country electorates represented by people on this side of the house. That efficiency is critical, because in terms of the supply chain for grain from the farm to the consumer, we must keep in mind that most grain is actually exported. I think about 70 per cent of the grain that South Australian farmers produce goes overseas, into very competitive markets, working on a world price, so efficiency is very important. The supply chain is essentially from the farm by truck to a local terminal on the railway line, then by rail to a seaboard port, and then typically overseas from there. All three of those major steps (road, rail and sea) need to be as efficient as they possibly can be to support our grain industry, which is so important to us.

Approximately 20 to 25 per cent of the state's current food revenue comes from grain in South Australia. South Australia is responsible for approximately 20 per cent of Australia's total grain production, so this is important from a local, state and national perspective. As I said, approximately 70 per cent of all grain produced goes overseas. As well as the fact that it goes overseas into these really competitive international markets that are supplying at a world price, there is the fact that you have to overlay seasonal variabilities with regard to production.

So farmers are out there all over South Australia doing the very best that they can to produce incredibly high-quality grain in difficult seasons and in good seasons, and then trying to match them up with bad prices and poor prices. These are all things that are completely out of our control, but the efficiency of our transport logistics is certainly within our control, so I am very pleased that this amendment goes to trying to improve the intrastate rail component that is essentially taking it from many grain depots, grain silos, all through country South Australia, and usually to seaboard ports. So it really does need to be as efficient as possible.

That rail link is particularly important, because the cost of fuel on rail is around about half the cost of road. Another important thing is that road freight all across Australia over the next 10 to 15 years is predicted to double, so anything that we can do to use this more efficient rail link and to make the existing rail link more efficient is going to be good for our state and also for our farmers who are trying to supply grain to the world market.

This market, certainly from the state's perspective, is about five to seven million tonnes a year, again, depending on seasonal variations. That represents about two to three billion dollars of revenue for our state. We cannot do too much to affect that—seasons impact that; farmers are already being as efficient as they possibly can be all throughout country South Australia—but if we can make this an efficient system to get this grain to these world markets then that can only help our industry, our farmers and our state.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (16:45): I thank the members of the opposition for their contributions. One of the great pleasures of being the Minister for Transport is bringing a rail bill to the parliament, because not only is rail important but it does hold a rather peculiar fascination for many people. I have to say, I appreciate the contributions made. I was a little disappointed that the member for Hammond occasionally touched on matters germane to the bill. I preferred much more the free-wheeling style that was going on—I say that in the best of good humour.

It is an opportunity to talk about rail when a bill is brought here, and it is vitally important in many electorates and plays a huge part in our history, as the lead speaker for the opposition pointed out, with I think the largest turntable in the Southern Hemisphere at Peterborough. Peterborough used to be the capital of rail in Australia and it does have a marvellous history. I thank people for their contributions and I look forward to the speedy progress of the bill.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT