6.1
This chapter focuses on key Inland Rail projects in NSW and Victoria, largely the Narrabri to North Star and Narromine to Narrabri projects in NSW and key matters raised about parts of the Victorian project (Tottenham to Albury).
6.2
The Tottenham to North Star corridor consists of seven separate projects— six in NSW and one in Victoria (being Tottenham to Albury). The corridor starts at metropolitan Melbourne (proposed locations being Truganina and/or Beveridge) and along the existing North East Rail Line to the NSW border town of Albury. From Albury, Inland Rail then travels through western NSW to the northern NSW town of North Star. The Parkes to Narromine project along this corridor was the first section of Inland Rail to be operational, commencing in September 2020, with phase 1 of Narrabri to North Star commencing its construction phase in November 2020.
6.3
Of the six projects in NSW, four are brownfield projects, and two greenfield. All the projects, except for Narromine to Narrabri were largely determined by the 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study (IRAS) and adopted by the 2015 Inland Rail Implementation Group (IRIG). These projects were agreed to by the NSW Government on 4 May 2018. The Victorian project is a brownfield track enhancement, agreed to by the Victorian Government on 16 March 2018. Table 6.1 outlines the status of the Inland Rail projects within Victoria and NSW.
Table 6.1: Project status, February 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tottenham to Albury
|
305km
|
Brownfield
|
Track enhancement
|
Stage 1 – reference design
Stage 2 – temporarily on hold
|
|
Albury to Illabo
|
185km
|
Brownfield
|
Track enhancement
|
Reference design; preparing draft EIS for exhibition
|
|
Illabo to Stockinbingal
|
37km
|
Greenfield
|
New track to bypass local townships
|
Reference design; preparing draft EIS for exhibition
|
|
Stockinbingal to Parkes
|
170.3km
|
Brownfield
|
Track enhancements
|
Reference and detailed design
|
|
Parkes to Narromine
|
98.4km & 5.3 km
|
Brownfield & greenfield
|
Track enhancements & new track
|
Operational September 2020
|
|
Narromine to Narrabri
|
306km
|
Greenfield
|
New track
|
Reference design; draft EIS under review
|
|
Narrabri to North Star
|
184.5 km & 1.7km
|
Brownfield & greenfield
|
Track enhancement (phase 1) & new track (phase 2)
|
Construction commenced phase 1; reference design phase 2 & preparing draft EIS for exhibition
|
|
North Star to Border
|
39km
|
Greenfield (14km) & brownfield (25km)
|
New track across Macintyre River and existing track upgrade
|
Reference design; draft EIS under review
|
North Star to NSW/Queensland border project
6.4
The alignment of Inland Rail through the region of North Star to the NSW/Queensland border (NS2B) has been under review since the 2010 IRAS, with the crossing of the Macintyre floodplain being a major consideration and determining factor throughout. In February 2017, the Australian Government announced a study area of Inland Rail that used an existing non-operational rail line from North Star to Boggabilla, with a shorter greenfield section crossing the Macintyre River into Queensland and connecting with the Queensland Rail South Western Line. This announcement established a widened 7km study area crossing the Macintyre River (see Figure 6.1), with further refinement during an MCA workshop in May 2017.
6.5
Throughout 2018–19, Inland Rail continued its reference design phase for the NS2B project, with additional technical work, environmental studies and community consultation. A central element of this work had been determining an appropriate rail crossing of the Macintyre River. In November 2018, the ARTC completed its initial flood modelling of the Macintyre River floodplain and progressed the design of structures required for this crossing. In addition, further investigation was initiated as part of this work, with six proposed route options under further study. The route titled West Option D st1D was ultimately chosen as the preferred alignment (see Figure 6.1).
6.6
In 2019, the ARTC commenced ‘intensive engagement with local stakeholders to address concerns about the crossing of the Macintyre floodplain’. The ARTC also engaged ‘local flood specialists’ in order to further refine the ‘Macintyre flood model including taking into account new LiDAR data and reviewing costings for alternative crossing points’.
6.7
The ARTC submitted its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the NS2B project in August 2020 for public exhibition. According to the ARTC’s draft EIS, the proposed location of the route starts 900m north of North Star and follows the existing, non-operational Boggabilla rail line for approximately 25km towards the town of Whalan Creek. Inland rail will connect with a 5km section of greenfield rail corridor towards the NSW/Queensland border that crosses the Macintyre River. The general width of the rail corridor is 40m. The ARTC’s preferred alignment for phase 2 feasibility design is below, extracted from the ARTC’s NS2B draft EIS document.
6.8
Source: ARTC, North Star to NSW/Queensland Border Environment Impact Statement, p. 3.
6.9
In November 2020, the NSW Government requested the ARTC to respond to submissions made by stakeholders of the NS2B project as part of the EIS process. On 10 December 2020, the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (Department of Planning) issued correspondence to the ARTC concerning its preferred infrastructure report, requesting the ARTC reassess the hydrology and flooding impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures. This correspondence is further discussed below.
Key matter — floodplain crossing and the alignment
6.10
For the NS2B project the primary concern of local residents related to the proposed alignment and its crossing of the Macintyre River. This concern was largely held by the residents of Goondiwindi, a town situated upriver from the proposed crossing. These local residents suggested that the ARTC’s flood modelling was flawed and therefore likely to subject the region to more severe floods. These residents argued that a more appropriate alignment exists and for a more thorough review of the potential alignment to be conducted. The region’s concern about flooding stems from a 2011 flood event, which according to the Goondiwindi Regional Council is ‘entrenched in the minds of locals’. This flood event meant ‘Goondiwindi was faced with the very real potential of levee banks overflowing for the first time in history’ and being evacuated. The Council spoke of a collective dismay at the proposed location of Inland Rail when it was of the view that more appropriate alternatives exist:
…it is unbelievable that the decision was originally made to put a national rail freight corridor through the middle of one of Australia's largest flood plains when alternatives exist. This decision was made in direct contrast to all the consultation that took place during the assessment period. I myself have lived in Goondiwindi since 1978, and I have not spoken to one man, woman or child that believes this to be the correct decision.
6.11
The committee heard of a number of concerns about the weightings and flood modelling used by the ARTC to determine Inland Rail’s alignment through the Macintyre floodplain. The Goondiwindi Regional Council and local landholders argued that the original modelling used by the ARTC, based on 1976 flood mapping, was a fatal flaw in the assessment process and asked why this map was used to make the original alignment recommendation to government. The Council informed the committee that it had raised this concern with the ARTC on a number of occasions, yet the Council maintained that the modelling remained incorrect despite ARTC’s insistence that it was listening to local communities. Mr Dion Jones of the Goondiwindi Regional Council remarked to the committee that:
The flood plain is still not correct. Even their 1976 calibration that they're using now still has levee banks on it that weren't there. We pointed this out to them on numerous occasions, but the information they're using just still isn't correct.
6.12
One estimate, provided by Mr Richard Doyle, was that the ARTC flood modelling was underestimated by half a million megalitres a day:
Our estimated peak flow volumes in this part of it, right at the junction of the rivers, from what we can gather from previous reporting in the 1976 flood event, are that it could be anything up to one million megalitres a day flowing through here at peak flow. It's a huge flood plain. The ARTC's initial indications with their first modelling were that it would be about half a million megalitres a day, so we've been chipping away, with them saying that you are way underestimating the amount of water that's coming through here.
6.13
The committee heard that five of the seven landholders along the proposed NS2B alignment were participants in the NSW Farmers Association (NSW Farmers) and Country Women’s Association (CWA) of NSW’s legal counsel process. Their legal counsel, Mr Peter Holt, explained that landholders in that area expressed concern about ‘route selection, flooding and hydrology, noise and vibration and the impact on their land, principally access and impact on their houses and livelihoods’. Consultations had led to these landholders jointly funding a desktop analysis of the EIS documentation, ‘not because they oppose the project but because they want to see a better project’. The outcome of this desktop analysis was detailed by Mr Holt, who explained that:
…the results were surprising in the sense that both the economist and the flood plain engineer that we engaged both identified that the work done to date in the context of that EIS for North Star to border was poor and needed to be redone…I did not expect to get that kind of review of material that was out on public exhibition.
In terms of what we're talking about in a practical sense, from a hydrology perspective we found that the modelling that was used to justify the design of the rail line across the Macintyre River was entirely inadequate and didn't reflect the lived experiences of the landholders. Again we're talking about human experience. We're talking three and four generations of farmers. They've been here. They were there for the 1976 flood. They were there for the 2006 flood. They are told that, based on ARTC modelling, which shows a very different impact on their properties, this is the result of the consequence of this rail line. They just don't believe that, and their concerns were borne out by the analysis that our flood plain engineer did of the modelling that was made publicly available by the ARTC. Again, we're talking about a time limitation and a cost limitation, so we're not in a capacity to go deep into the model and really understand it. We just look at the headline issues and we have experts peer review the material, and then they give us their advice, and that forms the basis of the objection.
6.14
A local resident, Mr Doyle indicated that the mulit-criteria assessment (MCA) for the region did not give sufficient importance to flooding and hydrology, and therefore the flood assessment was ‘completely irrelevant in alignment selection’. This inadequate consideration only heightened the community’s concerns about the ARTC’s decision-making processes, which ‘failed to properly consider the impacts from flooding of each of the possible alignments under consideration’. To further exacerbate the community’s concerns, the ARTC only released the MCA after 12-months of lobbying by local residents.
6.15
Of the route options considered by the ARTC, the community supported option A (see Figure 6.1) and did not consider any of the other alternatives as viable. For this reason it came as a surprise to the community when the ARTC announced option D1 as the preferred alignment. The reasons for this preference was detailed by the Goondiwindi Regional Council, which said that:
… option A offers a better potential crossing place of the Macintyre River. All landholders on both sides of the border in the corridor of option A are supportive of Inland Rail, in contrast to the D1 option, which makes compensation a minor problem. While agriculture only addresses nine per cent of the total base case for the Inland Rail project, there will be a major economic benefit to the town of Goondiwindi by coming closer to the major supply centre. At the same time there would also be a major saving of feeder lines that would be required if the corridor presented by inland rail were to work. This is essential.
6.16
Similarly, local landholders expressed their preference for option A. Mr Doyle on behalf of other landholders conveyed their anxiety about the D1 option proposed by the ARTC, with concerns voiced about the impact of construction of the D1 alignment:
Alternative option A offers a far less risky alternative because it crosses the Whalan Creek flood plain first, a lot further south than the river, and it then proceeds further on to the river and crosses from a high bank on the southern side of the river in an area where the river is largely contained within its banks in times of major flooding.
6.17
The Goondiwindi Shire Council emphasised that the crossing of the floodplain must be done with an elevated bridge to avoid any ‘obstructions, such as earth mounds or viaducts that may cause any amount of restriction, diversion or increased flood flows or levels’. Whilst calling for an elevated bridge, the Council also recognised the cost to be unviable. The Council highlighted that the ARTC placed a lot of emphasis on the overall route’s 24-hour timeline to justify the proposed route. This rationale was questioned by the Council and Goondiwindi residents. Mr Doyle was of the view the ARTC had ‘drawn a line on the map’ and rather than address local objections, ‘spent the last three years defending that decision’. Local landholders argued that the ARTC had an ‘almost religious zeal to stay on the preferred alignment’ and that the ‘business case is the driving force behind every decision’; specifically, the under 24-hour journey time between Brisbane and Melbourne.
6.18
Whilst Goondiwindi Shire Council expressed concern about the ARTC’s management of the Macintyre River crossing, the Moree Plains Shire Council expressed appreciation of the ARTC’s efforts to ‘address community concerns over issues such as flooding’, recognising that it was ‘a very divisive matter, in particular for the border river communities’.
6.19
The committee discussed the crossing of the Macintyre floodplain with the ARTC. During its January 2020 appearance, Inland Rail CEO Mr Richard Wankmuller stated that he was ‘most concerned about the Macintyre because of the velocity of flows in that area’ and emphasised their first and primary responsibility was public safety. A particular concern was for the town of Goondiwindi, and for this reason, the ARTC was in the process of reviewing its flood modelling and ‘[i]f we find that there is a public safety issue with the option that we're on, we'll move to the other option’.
6.20
To consider the community’s concern about the impact of Inland Rail on flooding, the ARTC’s draft EIS proposal included a 1.8km long viaduct that crosses Whalan Creek, Tucka Tucka Road and the Macintyre River. The original design of the viaduct was ‘three separate structures; however, an iterative flood assessment of the design, along with a systems approach to maintaining operational speeds and grades, has resulted in a single viaduct structure that minimises upstream flooding impacts’. The draft EIS also details an in-depth comparative analysis between alignments A and D1. The conclusion from this analysis validated proposed alignment D1 because it reduced environmental impacts, minimised structures within the Macintyre floodplain, improved safety outcomes due to a reduced number of road-rail interfaces and maintained ‘opportunities to connect with regional transport and freight hubs in northern NSW’.
6.21
On 10 December 2020 the Department of Planning issued correspondence to the ARTC regarding its flood modelling. The letter stated that the Department of Planning had reviewed the draft EIS and had sought further expert flooding and hydrology advice. The correspondence outlined concerns with the ARTC’s modelling to determine the hydrology and flooding impacts of the project, and observed that:
There is a significant difference between the 1% AEP presented as the basis for assessment and mitigation in the EIS, compared to the large design flood that the Border Rivers Valley Floodplain Management Plan (BRVFMP) establishes as its basis for assessment. The Department notes your ongoing participation in the Hydrology Working Group to resolve flooding and hydrology issues. The Department considers that the BRVFMP’s large design flood (based on the 1976 flood event) ensures consistency in assessing impacts of structures on the floodplain.
6.22
The Department of Planning subsequently requested that, in addition to the ARTC’s responses to submissions, that the ARTC completed a number of tasks, including a reassessment of the hydrology and flooding impacts of the projects as presented in the EIS, and a reconsideration of the proposed mitigation measures to address the hydrology and flooding impacts identified in the EIS.
6.23
The ARTC informed the committee that its flood model was subject to further sensitivity testing on the ‘flood flow, velocity and factors other than just afflux’ in relation to the historic 1976 flood event in the area. The data gained from the 1976 flood event was provided to the Department of Planning in March 2021 and no further concerns had been raised. The ARTC assured the committee that it ‘has adopted the same approach to detailed flood modelling and analysis across all projects, and hence no impact is envisaged on other projects that cross floodplains’.
6.24
When asked whether an independent review of the flood modelling was required for NSW in a similar manner to the independent panel established in Queensland, the ARTC responded that it was not needed because this requirement was already ‘part of the NSW project assessment and approvals process’. However, when reflecting upon the independent panel’s findings for the Border to Gowrie project in Queensland, the ARTC noted ‘[t]he Panel has also indicated it will prepare a supplementary Macintyre River floodplain report. ARTC is continuing provide data to support the Panel in its work’.
6.25
Mr Holt went on to highlight broader concerns with the ARTC’s findings, such as homesteads missed and not properly assessed for noise and vibration disturbances, and an overall concern ‘that the material that was on public exhibition was inadequate for an assessment of this kind’. Mr Holt concluded that the NS2B project could not continue in its current form and would result in:
…either a revised project or, alternatively, if it is conditioned, we're talking about it being conditioned in such a way that there'll be considerable time and energy in redoing things in order to bring them up to standards.
6.26
Mr Holt expressed a similar concern for the Narromine to Narrabri (N2N) project and for the Inland Rail project as a whole, stating that ‘given a project of this size, there are a number of project fundamentals that are missing’. He reflected that there was a widely held view by landholders that the primary cause of these issues was the underlying key parameters of Inland Rail—‘keep the cost below $10 billion, keep the travel time to less than 24 hours and keep construction time below five years’. A further speculative parameter suggested by Mr Holt was for the ARTC to ‘make sure that [Inland Rail was] always building some part of the project, somewhere along the alignment, over those five years’. In Mr Holt’s view, these parameters are arbitrary and are a limitation imposed upon the ARTC’s capacity to reconsider the proposed alignment, and he contended that:
… unless the government is prepared to give ARTC permission to change those parameters, they will continue to press ahead based on the project in its current formulation. What that means for the landholders on the ground is that the ARTC doesn't have the time, the money or the capacity to respond in a meaningful way to those issues that are raised and to change the project design to give effect to the changes that are required. We run the risk of a project where the wider, intangible benefits don't arise but the real, concrete impacts—afflux, inundation, noise, vibration, delays on level crossings—are borne by landowners, now and into the future.
6.27
On 30 June 2021, the Department of Planning publicly released the NS2B Response to Submission Report, Biodiversity Development Assessment Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report. These reports are part of the project’s assessment phase, and are followed by recommendations and a final determination on the project.
Narromine to Narrabri project
6.28
The N2N project is Inland Rail’s longest greenfield project, extending 300km from outside Narromine, to Curban, past Mt Tenandra, moving through the Pilliga Forest and ending at Narrabri.
6.29
The IRAS and IRIG were the two primary studies that informed the proposed alignment, with further consultation and analysis occurring in 2016. The work conducted from mid-2016 looked at various deviation options against the 2016 concept alignment, and narrowed the proposed corridor through broader community consultation. This consultation process identified a community preference for Inland Rail to travel along the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line and broad support for the route to travel through the Pilliga Forest. The 2016 review was supportive of the alignment to be moved to the Pilliga State Forest because it ‘reduced impact on private landholders and saved both time (6—12 minutes) and money ($83 million)’. However, the ARTC concluded that the alternative route options (such as the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line) added significant time and/or cost to the Inland Rail project..
6.30
On 30 November 2017, the Australian Government announced the N2N study area (see Figure 6.3) that included the eastern option around Narromine and through the Pilliga Forest. The eastern option around Narromine is 1.02km and 24 seconds longer than the 2016 Concept alignment’s western option, but was preferred due to the land possessing favourable geotechnical conditions, a saving of approximately $12.2 million in earthworks (compared to the western option), and access to higher ground. Therefore reducing flooding risks and requiring fewer private level crossings. The ARTC’s preferred corridor is demonstrated by the 2017 N2N study area in Figure 6.3, with the preferred corridor’s scope extending from 2km wide and as narrow as 500m, with an expanded study area of up to 5km for the areas south and east of Narromine.
6.31
The 2017 study area informed the draft N2N EIS that was lodged with the Department of Planning for public exhibition from 8 December 2020 to 7 February 2021. As of February 2021, the Department of Planning was collating submissions from stakeholders in the project. The ARTC’s draft EIS details the key design and construction features, the timing of the construction and anticipated operation of the N2N project within Inland Rail.
Key matters
6.32
Similar to the NS2B project, the committee concerns regarding the proposed alignment for Inland Rail, particularly the use of a greenfield alignment rather than the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line. This concern fed into farmers’ distress regarding land access agreements with the ARTC.
6.33
The N2N alignment also crosses known floodplains, with various stakeholders questioning the flood modelling used by the ARTC and expressed concern for an increased flooding risk posed by Inland Rail. For this reason, farmer groups called for government funding to conduct an independent review of the ARTC’s modelling, which was denied by the Australian Government. These farming groups ultimately raised their own funds to facilitate the review.
Alignment
6.34
Similar to other Inland Rail projects, questions have been asked about the rationale and suitability of the preferred N2N alignment, with some witnesses and submitters arguing a more suitable route was available along the existing Dubbo-Coonamble rail corridor. This argument was made by the Coonamble Shire Council, which explained the existing corridor bypasses hills and waterways, and travels through farmland accustomed to train travel. The Council’s Mayor Ahmad Karanouh added that the Coonamble route would also capitalise on agri-businesses operating in the area, with access to agricultural products stored in silos along the corridor, providing valuable employment opportunities for the local community.
6.35
The Coonamble Shire Council told the committee that the ARTC’s objection to the Coonamble route was due to it being 15-minutes longer than the proposed concept alignment, and subsequently not meeting the 24-hour Melbourne to Brisbane travel time threshold.
6.36
The committee received evidence from the Gilgandra Shire Council putting forward the concerns of landholders about the process used to determine the Inland Rail’s alignment. Whilst not taking a position on the preferred alignment, the Council was critical of the time it has taken to progress to the detailed design phase, as that has ‘caused considerable uncertainty for people at a time when drought has had a severe impact on all aspects of their lives’.
6.37
Landholders of the region also expressed their concerns about the alignment, particularly those landholders subject to land acquisitions. The Dubbo Branch of the NSW Farmers Association informed the committee that landholders in the Burroway-to-Curban area would be significantly disrupted by the dismantling of their farmland along the present alignment, with a huge sacrifice to their businesses. Its member, Mr David McBurnie shared his view that the needs of farming businesses in the region were being ignored, whilst the needs of businesses based in Melbourne and Brisbane were being prioritised. He spoke of Inland Rail adversely impacting the movement of sheep on his farm and the increased potential for mismothered lambs.
6.38
When asked whether disenfranchised landholders were a minority, the Dubbo Branch of NSW Farmers responded that they were a fairly big majority and that the local council was glossing over their concerns due the financial benefits provided by federal and state governments. A similar critique of local governments was made by NSW Farmers, which contended that local governments were not listening to their ratepayers. This point was shared by the CWA which suggested that:
… some local councils today, that have sought to downplay the concerns of the communities as being held by a minority, are frankly [inaudible] and are contributing to the further community concerns that we, as the largest rural based advocacy group in New South Wales, know are alive and well.
6.39
The NSW Farmers added that the ARTC had not provided sufficient evidence to justify why the N2N alignment did not use the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line. In its submission to the NSW Department of Planning, NSW Farmers and the CWA contended that ‘no robust economic analysis has been undertaken’ for the Dubbo-Coonamble line, and that the strict time parameters of Inland Rail have prevented the ARTC from considered alternative routes, ‘even if the resultant benefits could, in a cost/benefit sense, offset any additional travel time’. The submission listed the benefits of the Dubbo-Coonamble line, compared to the disadvantages of the ARTC’s proposed alignment. These benefits included:
a reduction in the amount of land needed to be acquired by Inland Rail, reducing the impact on the number of farms in the region;
use of existing infrastructure in Coonamble (large depots, silos, storage facilities), whereas similar infrastructure in Curban has been decommissioned;
reduction in flooding and hydrology issues due to the alignment travelling along the Castlereagh River, rather than crossing at Curban; and
utilising a line already earmarked for significant upgrade works as part of the Country Lines Improvement Program, thus reducing the cost of Inland Rail.
6.40
Conversely, the disadvantages specified by the ARTC about the Dubbo-Coonamble line and objected to by NSW Farmers and the CWA included that:
the Dubbo-Coonamble line option is said to be longer and according to the ARTC would jeopardise the 24-hour business case benchmark;
the ARTC claim the proposed alignment is relatively flood-free; however, submitters questioned the accuracy of flooding and hydrology modelling; and,
the ARTC claim the Dubbo-Coonamble line is longer, more costly with a longer travel time, and thus the line harms Inland Rail’s service offering; however, submitters pointed out that ‘no economic analysis has been undertaken or disclosed which would support this conclusion’.
6.41
NSW Farmers and the CWA concluded that a ‘greater use of the existing Dubbo to Coonamble rail line presents an opportunity to provide tangible benefits to this regional community, with few disadvantages’.
6.42
Their submission raised concerns with the ARTC’s preference for the rail corridor being located immediately west of Narrabri, with local residents arguing that it is ‘inappropriate and results in unacceptable environmental impacts’. NSW Farmers and the CWA called for the alignment to be located a further 10km away from Narrabri, resulting in a reduced flooding risk, cost benefits, improved travel time, reduced noise and improved opportunities for connectivity to intermodal hubs.
6.43
The concern about an increased flooding risk was later reinforced by the findings of an independent review of the flood modelling by WRM Water and Environment on behalf of local landholders. The review found a significant increase in the number of properties in Narromine exposed to flooding due to Inland Rail’s crossing of the Macquarie River:
The proposed rail is located directly across the overflow path from the Macquarie River that directs floodwater around Narromine during rare flood events. The change in the distribution in flow due to the proposed rail would increase above floor flooding to 605 dwellings in Narromine for the 1% AEP plus climate change event and 2,520 dwellings for the 0.2% AEP event. Additional viaduct or an alternative rail location would be required to mitigate the impacts at Narromine.
6.44
The ARTC analysed the Coonamble proposal made by NSW Farmers. It found the route added 24 minutes to Inland Rail’s transit time, and 39 kilometres in distance relative to the approved 2017 alignment. The ARTC anticipated the additional cost to be $56 million in construction.
Land access agreements
6.45
The committee also heard concern for the ARTC’s access to land along the proposed alignment. For NSW, the ARTC had developed the NSW Agreed Principles of Land Access in conjunction with, and publicly endorsed by, NSW Farmers in 2018. However, despite the existence of these principles, concerns about land access arrangements and the agreement remain.
6.46
NSW Farmers was critical of the ARTC's decision to commence one-on-one consultations with landholders in February 2018. They instead advocated for the ARTC to defer the process 'until such time as more data justifying the selection of the preferred route was in the public domain'. The organisation added that the consultation process commenced prior to the land access agreement being finalised and evidence suggested the ARTC had failed to use the land access agreement in negotiations with landholders.
6.47
Concerning the land access agreement itself, NSW Farmers argued that it was not sufficiently comprehensive, with no clear guidance on landholders' right of appeal, compensation arrangements or other conditions relating to third parties accessing properties. For this reason, NSW Farmers' Executive Council in 2018 called for a further agreement with the ARTC to establish 'general terms of a land access agreement' that 'can be entered into by affected landholders'.
6.48
NSW Farmers added that overall, the ARTC demonstrated a lax process concerning land access, biosecurity, safety, privacy and confidentiality. Its members reported that ARTC and its associates were entering properties without advanced warning, with reports of confidential arrangements and negotiations being disclosed to landholders and other stakeholders. These concerns were shared by the CWA, which called for funding to be made available for an independent expert to consult with stakeholders and 'establish a best-practice land access agreement template for landholders'.
6.49
In response to concerns about land access agreements, Inland Rail’s CEO, Mr Richard Wankmuller, spoke of his personal frustration with a NSW Farmers’ directive for landholders to cease communicating with the ARTC due to their objection to land access agreements. He reiterated that the ARTC was committed to providing additional information requested, and that the ARTC’s land access agreement had been negotiated with and supported by NSW Farmers. Further, the ARTC had offered to fund a consultant embedded within NSW Farmers to act as a conduit between its members and the Inland Rail project. This offer was not taken up by NSW Farmers. Overall, Mr Wankmuller said he was ‘willing to personally engage, because [he] would like the relationship to improve and get [NSW Farmers] the information they seek’.
Flooding, hydrology and water resources
6.50
Similar to other flood prone regions, the committee was advised of local apprehensions about Inland Rail’s crossing of the region’s floodplain, which consists of three major water catchments, 44 watercourses and other intermittent tributaries. Of specific concern are the areas west of the Warrumbungle Mountains (Warrumbungles Watershed) and east of Narromine (Webb’s Siding or Backwater Cowal). The committee received numerous arguments as to why train infrastructure in that region is unsuitable and that the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line is a more appropriate option.
6.51
Landholders’ concerns regarding flooding and Inland Rail were raised by NSW Farmers and the CWA, with presentations made to the ARTC requesting access to the flood and hydrology modelling. NSW Farmers informed the committee that on two occasions the modelling had not been provided, nor did the ARTC provide the NSW Farmers with a reason why not. This response ultimately led to community calls for an independent review of the hydrological modelling, driven by landholders wanting the ARTC to be held accountable for the flood and hydrology models used to inform the draft EIS.
6.52
Local landholders were initially unable to commence their own independent review of flood modelling for the N2N project, largely due to project’s size and the substantive cost of conducting an independent review of the 300km greenfield project. Mr Peter Holt, reflecting on the benefits of the landholders’ independent review of the NS2B project, explained why a similar review was needed for the N2N project:
Ultimately, we're talking about compensation claims for farmers who are suffering due to their property going underwater for longer than it otherwise would. We're talking about real impacts. It's better to sort that out now, before the project is approved and before the reference design is finalised. In a practical sense, the modelling work that we did for North Star to the border indicated that, where you have culverts and levees, you should have bridges. That has a real cost implications for this project, but I see that as just a cost of the project. If the modelling indicates that the circumstances justify a bridge rather than a culvert and rather than a levee, then, I'm afraid, you just have to pay for the bridge.
6.53
The Australian Government refused calls for funding to conduct an independent review of the flood and hydrology modelling used for the N2N project. The then Deputy Prime Minister stated that an independent review would be facilitated through the Department of Planning’s EIS process. In correspondence to the NSW Farmers it was argued that an ‘independent review of ARTC’s modelling is a mandated requirement of the NSW Government’ for the N2N project and that ‘BMT are undertaking this review and that their report will form part of the EIS documentation that will be released to public exhibition by the NSW Government’. The then Deputy Prime Minister added that this approach was consistent with the hydrological review undertaken as part of the NS2B project.
6.54
In response, local landholders independently raised the required funds for NSW Farmers and the CWA to contract WRM Water & Environment to conduct an independent review of the flooding and hydrology modelling presented in the EIS.
6.55
On 7 February 2021, in a joint submission to the Department of Planning’s consideration of the draft EIS for N2N, NSW Farmers and the CWA detailed specific concerns for the N2N’s crossing of the Warrumbungles Watershed and the Backwater Cowal. The submission argued that the ‘EIS is negligently deficient’ in its regard for the flooding and hydrology requirements under NSW Government environmental assessment requirements, and that ‘significant further investigation and independent assessment needs to be undertaken to ensure that the flooding and hydrology impacts are effectively managed’.
6.56
The submission raised specific concerns shared by communities and landholders in the region, namely the underestimation of water flows from the Backwater Cowal and the Warrumbungles Watershed. It highlighted that ‘many of the statements made in the EIS do not accord with the lived experience of the landowners on the ground’. The submission demanded that the discrepancies between landholders and the ARTC be addressed:
[T]he ARTC should be required, at a minimum, to address why such significant discrepancies exist regarding the modelling and actual flow rates in Backwater Cowal and the Warrumbungles Watershed, and justify why their desktop analysis is to be preferred over the real experiences of those in the community.
6.57
The submission raised further concerns over the durability and safety of the Inland Rail project’s crossing of water catchments, the adequacy of mitigation efforts (culverts vs bridges) and ‘whether the proposed design and location of the culverts will be able to manage the anticipated volumes and velocities of flows’. The submission went on to outline concerns for the subsequent impact of Inland Rail on soil and erosion, and groundwater. The submission concluded that NSW Farmers and the CWA ‘have serious and enduring concerns regarding the quality, accuracy and depth of the analysis which has been used as the basis for the EIS for the N2N’ project and called for a more thorough and detailed assessment that addressed the issues raised in their submission. NSW Farmers and the CWA called for the Department of Planning to refuse consent of the draft EIS for the N2N project or for the ARTC to withdrawal its submission and make the necessary adjustments to the application. WRM Water and Environment’s findings were provided to the Department of Planning on 19 February 2021.
Local water resources
6.58
An additional matter raised by various stakeholders concerned Inland Rail’s access to and use of local water supplies. The Gilgandra Shire Council were of the view that water use for the construction of the N2N project was a major risk. It added that more consultation with communities to investigate and secure water supplies was required, in particular to ensure that water supplies:
… do not compete with existing stock and domestic supplies. Despite direct representation to ARTC and the Federal Government for Council to lead community discussion to find a solution to this problem, no feedback has been received and therefore no progress has been able to occur.
6.59
The Council called for the ARTC and Australian Government to ‘rapidly expedite investigations in securing and quantifying water sources for construction purposes…prior to any construction tender being released’.
6.60
A similar concern was shared by the Dubbo Branch of the NSW Farmers, with its members having grave concerns for Inland Rail’s demand for underground water, which could jeopardise the ‘[s]ecurity of stock and domestic water supply’. Its members believed there were inadequate considerations of these environmental impacts on the region. NSW Farmers and the CWA called for the precautionary principle to be triggered in order to ‘conduct a thorough investigation into the claims made in the EIS and the Groundwater Assessment as to the acceptable impacts on groundwater prior to granting approval to the N2N’.
6.61
On 27 November 2020, the ARTC announced a partnership with the Gilgandra Shire Council to explore and drill four bores across the Shire over the following two years for the construction of the N2N Inland Rail project. The ARTC highlighted that the agreement, achieved through discussions with the local council, was driven by landholders’ concerns about water sources and a need to ‘secure water sources that don’t compete with existing stock and domestic bores’. The bores will become community assets once the project is completed.
Committee comment and recommendations
6.62
Similar to the experience of those communities along Queensland’s Inland Rail corridor, communities within NSW are confronted with the prospect of an increased flood risk due to Inland Rail. For those communities impacted by Inland Rail’s crossing of the Macintyre River, particularly those residents in Goondiwindi, the independent desktop review of the ARTC’s modelling , as well as the Department of Planning’s request for further sensitivity testing of the ARTC’s flood modelling serves to validate communities’ concerns. The committee holds similar concern for the N2N project, and the impact of Inland Rail on landholders and local residents in that region.
6.63
Whilst the Australian Government deemed it necessary for an independent international panel to be established for Queensland, a similar offer was not made for NSW. The rationale for this decision was based on differences in the EIS processes between jurisdictions. However, the committee challenges the Australian Government’s position, arguing that the independent panel’s findings in Queensland have empowered local communities, improved transparency, strengthened the EIS process, and provided an additional oversight measure to ensure Inland Rail’s modelling, design and construction is enhanced. These oversight measures are vital to ensure flooding is not exacerbated by Inland Rail. The committee also notes that the Queensland independent panel has indicated that it would prepare a supplementary Macintyre River floodplain report, despite the reassurance of the ARTC that no such review is necessary.
6.64
The Australian Government’s decision not to endorse an independent panel for NSW is a strategic failure. It has placed the financial and evidential burden onto the shoulders of farmers and local residents. The committee commends NSW Farmers and the CWA for their hard work and longstanding advocacy for these communities, and their effort to implement their own review of the ARTC’s flood modelling that has helped inform the Inland Rail’s EIS process in NSW.
6.65
In order to address this omission by government, the committee endorses the establishment of an independent international flood and hydrologist panel to conduct a review of the flood modelling and design features of the Inland Rail project’s crossing of major flood zones in NSW.
6.66
Similar to the committee’s recommendations in Chapter 5, any findings of the WRM Water and Environment report, the NSW Government’s review and the Queensland independent panel should be integrated into the draft EIS and that the EIS process not be completed until it accurately and adequately reflects the findings of these reviews.
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.
6.68
A further concern shared by the committee is the appropriateness of some chosen project alignments. Whilst the committee can appreciate the work that has been achieved by the ARTC, the underlying issue remains the strict parameters established by the Australian Government. Of particular concern is the evidence that suggests the Australian Government and the ARTC have not conducted a thorough and detailed review of the existing Dubbo-Coonamble line, including the economic benefits of utilising the alignment for the residents of the Coonamble region. The rationale for this decision is again based on the 24-hour journey time. Yet again, this parameter has undermined consideration of a potentially more appropriate Inland Rail corridor and damaged the community’s trust in the Inland Rail project. The committee is supportive of an independent review of the proposed alignments for the N2N project in NSW, similar to that undertaken for the Border to Gowrie project in Queensland.
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.
6.70
The committee shares stakeholders’ concern of the impact of Inland Rail on local water resources. For this reason, encourages the ARTC to conduct a thorough investigation, in consultation with landholders and local governments, to assess groundwater resources.
6.71
Finally, the committee reiterates its concern for the fractured relationship between the ARTC and NSW Farmers. Ensuring constructive, positive engagement between the ARTC and other key stakeholders in NSW is critical to ensure the project’s success. For this reason, the committee encourages the ARTC, NSW Farmers and the CWA to re-establish a working relationship in order to facilitate the necessary dialogue required to produce a positive outcome for communities, landholders and Inland Rail. As recommended, the committee supports the ARTC engaging an independent mediator to facilitate an improved working relationship between all parties (see recommendation 16). The committee requests that NSW Farmers reconsiders the ARTC’s offer for an Inland Rail representative to be embedded within NSW Farmers to act as a conduit between its members and the ARTC.
Tottenham to Albury project
6.72
The Tottenham to Albury (T2A) project is the single Inland Rail project planned for Victoria, with an upgrade to 305km of existing rail corridor between metropolitan Melbourne to Albury-Wodonga. This project has two stages:
Stage One is the enhancement of 12 sites along the North East Rail Line between Beveridge to Albury. Work on this section has commenced to ensure the existing alignment can accommodate the clearance of double-stacked trains. Many of these changes will occur in and around station precincts within communities along the alignment.
Stage Two is focused upon metropolitan Melbourne with a new intermodal terminal being created to accommodate Inland Rail. This stage in on hold whilst a study is undertaken by the Victorian Government to determine the location, configuration and timing of the intermodal terminal. This intermodal facility will interconnect Inland Rail with the Port of Melbourne, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Key matters
6.73
The committee hosted a public hearing in Melbourne on 22 April 2021 to consider matters related to the Inland Rail’s activities in Victoria, particularly for the communities of Euroa, Benalla and Glenrowan. These communities are all located along the existing North East Rail Line. As discussed in Chapter 4, many of the concerns are rooted in the ARTC’s consultation process with those communities along the T2A project. These communities are rail towns, existing alongside rail infrastructure, and for this reason, do not object to the rail upgrades needed for Inland Rail. However, representatives from these communities were distressed by the lack of consideration given to alternative proposals designed to facilitate a better outcome for local residents.
6.74
For Euroa residents, a key concern is the ARTC’s proposed upgrade to an existing overpass along Anderson Street, which will increase its height by 2.5 to 3 metres and be topped by a 1.8 to 2.4 metre barrier. Local residents argue that the bridge, if constructed, would ‘further impede visual and social amenity across [Euroa], specifically in respect of the heritage precinct’. Further, if built, the bridge would ‘impose a clear division’ between the north and south sides of town. To address this issue, Euroa Connect proposed an underpass for the rail corridor.
6.75
Euroa Connect criticised the ARTC for not considering the community’s proposal and rejected any claim that the community was in support of an overpass bridge. Rather than consider an alternative, Euroa Connect found the ARTC’s approach was to ‘socialise a bigger bridge’. It added that information provided to the community about the project’s cost and engineering lacked details, resulting in unnecessary conclusions.
6.76
Strathbogie Shire Council Mayor, Mr Chris Raeburn, provided a more cautious response to the prospect of, and community support for, an underpass. He stated that the community remained divided and that the ARTC had committed to consider all proposals made by local residents. This undertaking would be achieved through ‘quantitative deliberative engagement’ with the community as a means to determine the best option for Euroa.
6.77
In Benalla, local residents spoke of a similar issue with the obstructive nature of the existing road overpass and the prospect of it being increased to a height of 10 metres in order to accommodate Inland Rail. This increase in height would also require a reconfiguration of access ramps and the construction of a 3 metre high concrete retaining wall. Instead of the ARTC’s proposal, the Better Benalla Rail community group proposed a 1.3km realignment of the existing XPT rail corridor to the opposite side of the station precinct. This realignment would see improved accessibility to the station and the removal of the existing overpass.
6.78
In addition to issues with ARTC’s consultation with the Benalla community, the committee heard that the public information and diagrams of the proposed overpass’ height was misleading, flawed and incomplete. Attempts by the community to gain access to additional details about the upgrade were not accommodated by the ARTC. The community also argued that the ARTC failed to undertake a consultative review of the community’s alternative proposal.
6.79
The primary concern for residents of Glenrowan was the impact of an increase to the existing overpass on heritage-listed Ned Kelly sites that provide a vital role in the community’s economy.
6.80
When describing the experience of local residents in these towns and the ARTC’s consideration of engineering proposals made by these communities, the committee was told ‘[t]hey run on preconceived ideas until they hit a wall, and it’s only when they hit a wall do they ever change those things’. Local residents contended that it all comes down to money.
6.81
In response to the objections expressed by community representatives in Euroa, Benalla and Glenrowan, the ARTC spoke of its consultations with those communities resulting in a recognition of the need ‘to refresh a little, slow down a little, and take on board more views’. In Euroa, the ARTC recognised that it did not have council support for its proposal and that the community was divided, therefore there was a need to revisit the proposal. Similarly, in Benalla the ARTC was taking stock of the proposed alternatives and recognised that the proposed precinct development was a better solution for the site. The ARTC spoke of there being varying views across the community in Glenrowan.
Committee comment
6.82
The committee’s hearing in Melbourne revealed a positive outcome for north east Victorian communities based along Inland Rail’s proposed corridor. Comments by the ARTC about further consultation with local residents of Euroa and recognition that the proposed alternatives for Benalla offered a better solution indicate an agreeable outcome for both Inland Rail and local residents is possible. The committee commends the efforts of local communities for their pragmatic advocacy for a better rail solution.
6.83
The committee encourages the ARTC to learn from its experiences in NSW and Queensland and apply these lessons to its engagement with Victorian residents and local councils. As noted in Chapter 4, it is imperative that the ARTC improves the level of consultation with all stakeholders, including local governments, and ensures the views of local residents are considered, and when suitable, integrated into the design of Inland Rail.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair
Labor Senator for Western Australia