4.1
A vital component to a successful infrastructure project is its stakeholder engagement and consultation processes. It is critical as a means to develop the project, utilise the expertise of stakeholders and to open channels of communication with industry representatives, impacted communities and landholders.
4.2
This chapter considers ARTC’s efforts to engage and consult with local communities and landholders along the proposed alignment of Inland Rail, and with industry representatives on how best to implement and utilise this significant infrastructure project.
Engagement and consultation overview
4.3
Throughout the 2006 North-South Rail Corridor Study, the 2010 Inland Rail Alignment Study and the 2015 Inland Rail Implementation Study, the ARTC’s consultation process remained ‘very high-level’, with the focus on federal, state and local governments and industry stakeholders, due to the ‘nature of the decisions being made about route and alignment’. During this time the ARTC consulted with key industry representatives to help inform the parameters of the Inland Rail project and its service offering, such as the 24 hour journey time between Brisbane and Melbourne.
4.4
At the early stages of the project, the capacity for the ARTC to engage with local communities and landholders was limited due to an absence of technical information. As the project has progressed, the level of community consultation has subsequently grown, as noted in its Inland Rail Route History 2006–2020 report:
As the project progressed and more technical studies were completed, the level of information available and community engagement possible increased. In the early life of the Inland Rail project, the information available often did not, nor could it, meet the expectations of landowners and the community.
4.5
The ARTC emphasised the importance of communication and engagement with stakeholders of the Inland Rail project. Its consultation engagement strategy aims to build trust, credibility and visibility, and primarily focuses upon building awareness of Inland Rail with landholders and communities. Themes of this engagement include education about the need and benefits of Inland Rail, its alignment, potential impacts, timelines, project approval processes and investigations and studies associated with those approval processes.
4.6
The principles of the ARTC’s engagement have been informed by the Spectrum of Public Participation engagement strategy that fosters early and regular engagement, inclusivity, transparency, equitability, accessibility, materiality and responsiveness. A part of the ARTC's approach has been the establishment of Community Consultative Committees (CCCs in NSW and Queensland) in 2017–18, and working groups (Victoria and southern NSW) as a means to share project information, engage in topic discussions, and address issues and community concerns as they arise. In addition, the CCCs and working groups provide Inland Rail with access to local knowledge and experience to help inform the project. Pop-up information session are periodically established to facilitate regular consultations, along with permanent ARTC and Department of Infrastructure offices in locations such as Wodonga, Dubbo, Moree, Gilgandra, Goondiwindi, Narrabri and Toowoomba.
Criticism of the ARTC’s stakeholder engagement process
4.7
Despite the ARTC's efforts to meet community consultation and engagement expectations, it has been mired by a high degree of landholder, community, local government and industry dissatisfaction. The committee heard numerous stories of inadequate consultation and engagement processes, especially at the early stages of the Inland Rail project.
Community and landholder consultation
4.8
Across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, the committee heard numerous concerns with the level of the ARTC’s consultation with communities and individual landholders. The Inner Downs Inland Rail Action Group called representatives of the ARTC 'cowboys' that 'rocked up to people's places in unmarked vehicles, with no weed hygiene certificates and not even a policy to follow' and suggested the 'consultation at the beginning was absolutely appalling for a company this size'. Various individual landholders argued the ARTC’s consultation process was just a tick-the-box endeavour. Ms Vivien Thomson explained many NSW landholders didn’t feel listened to, and that government representatives failed to provide any support:
Some [landholders] had no choice but to open that gate extremely reluctantly, because they feel they're not being listened to very well and not even being given the time of day. I know there are a lot of people here who have been speaking to state and federal politicians here and in the Riverina. They're constantly passing the buck, and they're not answering any questions or even listening to any of their concerns. When you are treated like that, it's very disrespectful. They're being told one thing and the goalposts are constantly changing. This causes so much stress and anxiety for our farmers on top of everything else that we're going through.
4.9
Representatives from the Millmerran Rail Group expressed similar concern and dismay. Whilst acknowledging improvements, it believed there was an issue within the ARTC that meant information gained through public consultations was not being fed through to key stakeholders, including government departments and federal and state ministers. This resulted in the inadequate recognition of local knowledge and a belief that ARTC representatives displayed ’very little respect or regard…for local historic knowledge’. This resulted in Millmerran locals viewing the ARTC’s engagement process to be tokenistic, with local contributions ‘actively disregarded in the decision-making process’. The Millmerran Rail Group concluded the ARTC lacked process, transparency and accountability for its consultation and engagement measures, and was of the view that:
The information and submissions provided through formal channels such as the PRG [Project Reference Group] have not been acknowledged, responded to or acted on. Submissions have not informed decisions or assessments and there is no transparency of how this information is recorded and considered. When landholders and stakeholders have provided information, given their time or made genuine requests, these have not been acknowledged. It has been the experience of many landholders that ARTC have been argumentative and disrespectful. Furthermore, individual landholders have been approached without proper process and diligence causing distress.
4.10
For landholders and property owners, the uncertainty has had a profound impact, with submitters and witnesses speaking of the mental and emotional burden, and clearly distressed when describing their experiences. Mrs Sandra Robinson provided a moving account of the adverse impact the Inland Rail project has had on her community in Millmerran, arguing that the ARTC failed to adequately address the mental and emotional costs on individuals and communities. She spoke of landholders receiving a letter that did not ‘acknowledge the distress, anxiety and grief that its contents would cause’ and lacked ‘the intelligence to add the support services of Lifeline and Beyond Blue in their letter’. Cootamundra landholder, Mr Tony Hill detailed the emotional impact the ARTC’s consultation process has had on the local community:
The system of consultation has to be changed. It is not genuine. It is not exclusive to this project; it is a process only to be seen to be doing the right thing. As a stakeholder, I feel that decisions are all made prior with hidden agenda, and the terminology of consultation is false. You are left feeling sceptical, lacking trust and at the mercy of political and business decision-making. I feel a lot of emotion and stressful impact as the people who I deal with on the face-to-face level are ARTC employees, seen to be doing their job, with frequent changes of another new person with very limited consistency. I would like to see better protocols and guidelines in place so that you don't feel deceived by a company during consultative processes.
4.11
Mrs Karen McBurnie spoke of a ‘complete lack of transparency in the planning and consultation process’; a view shared by Ms Wanda Galley, who contended that ‘[c]onsultation was only a box-ticking exercise to make it appear that they assessed route sections accordingly’. Ms Vivien Thomson accused federal and state ministers of consistently passing the buck when it came to addressing community concerns.
4.12
The failure of the ARTC’s consultation process is demonstrated by the experience of the NSW Farmers Association (NSW Farmers) and the NSW Country Women’s Association (CWA). The head of the Inland Rail Taskforce of the NSW Farmers, Mr Adrian Lyons, suggested that the ARTC was speaking in platitudes. With reference to Inland Rail’s CEO, Mr Richard Wankmuller, Mr Lyons explained that ‘whatever question we’ve asked, it never comes back as an answer’ rather ‘[i]t comes back in a form’, leading to members experiencing ‘document fatigue’, in part because they contain no answers. This point was shared by the CWA, which stated that the unprecedented union between it and NSW Farmers was in response to the ‘amount of work and document fatigue’ experienced by landholders.
4.13
As a result of their concerns with the ARTC’s consultation process, NSW Farmers recommended that its members affected by Inland Rail not engage with the ARTC.
4.14
The CWA recognised the potential of Inland Rail to deliver a great benefit to regional communities in NSW, but asserted that its support was not unequivocal due to its concern with the consultation process:
We support the project, but there are too many uncertainties and unanswered questions for our support to be considered unequivocal. To be direct, we cannot support the way the project is currently being executed. When communities, landholders and other impacted individuals are repeatedly dismissed, ignored and patronised by both the project builders and those giving their political support to the project in the pursuit of big infrastructure, we cannot sit by and be silent.
…
landholders and communities alike have been raising their sensible, well-founded concerns about certain aspects of this project for years. The federal government and Inland Rail continually state the upside of the project, but they regularly have a defensive attitude to valid questions from the people who stand to be most affected. These people are often portrayed as anti-progressives, which they are not. They are ordinary citizens who are very supportive of the significant infrastructure investment in the regions and deserve more than a cursory acknowledgement of their concerns.
4.15
In the CWA’s February 2021 submission to the NSW Department of Planning, it was emphasised that the ARTC’s consultation process was ‘grossly inadequate’ and therefore the CWA ‘seriously question[s] the credibility of the claims regarding the adequacy of the community engagement conducted by the ARTC’. A key point made was the ARTC’s reluctance to produce documents and disclose material that would have permitted landholders and other stakeholders ‘to consider and respond to concerns regarding the impacts of the [Narromine to Narrabri (N2N)] Project’. A specific concern raised was the ARTC not providing reference designs for the N2N project that has subsequently stymied ‘objections by withholding key information that could inform independent assessment’.
4.16
A consequence of the ARTC’s community consultation process was a widespread view across communities that local knowledge and advice was being ignored. In particular, local knowledge about the suitability of the preferred alignments and issues with the flood and hydrology models developed by the ARTC. This point was emphasised by the NSW Farmers and the CWA’s legal counsel, Mr Peter Holt when reflecting upon how the consultation process informed the draft EIS for the N2N project. He argued that it was inadequate, especially concerning its deliberation of local expertise:
Most of that EIS documentation was done on basis of looking at the properties from afar—that is, looking from the road reserves and the existing rail corridors. In the context of the flooding, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr Eddie Billings, who has given a lot of advice to the councils on impacts associated with flooding, over a long period of time. I actually took an affidavit from him. Mr Billings is a font of knowledge that relates to flooding on the Macintyre River. The points that he made are valid, and what we could not see in the modelling work that had been done was Mr Billings's points being translated into flood modellings predicting the impact associated with this development. What happens there is, because you can't see that landholder experience translated into the modelling and the outcomes, you have real concerns about what the implications of a development of this kind will be.
4.17
NSW Farmers and the CWA were of the view that the ARTC produced ‘nothing meaningful’ in response to community concerns and questions. For this reason, rather than continue their engagement with the ARTC, they directed questions to the NSW Department of Planning, who in turn, put those questions to the ARTC as part of the EIS process.
4.18
Similar community sentiments about the lack of meaningful engagement were expressed by community representatives from north east Victoria. Community representatives from Euroa contended that proper consultation was yet to take place, demonstrated by the resignation of five out of the ten members of the dedicated ARTC working group ‘because they were deeply troubled by the fact that they were not being consulted appropriately or properly’. Euroa Connect expressed concern that the ARTC were socialising their proposal and had ‘misrepresented its engagement activities’ by stating the vast majority of the town supported the proposed design of the Inland Rail overpass. Benalla residents pointed out that for two years they had battled the ARTC ‘because of their lack of transparency and poor community consultation’. Better Benalla Rail contended that the ARTC’s approach was to ‘claim community consultation but only deliver generalities’ with information provided lacking specific details.
4.19
As noted in paragraph 4.6, the ARTC established CCCs in Queensland and NSW, and working groups in Victoria as a means to facilitate community consultation; however, the committee received mixed accounts on the success of these two measures. Mr Richard Doyle, a member of the CCC for the North Star to Border (NS2B) project detailed the experience of the CCC's engagement with the ARTC and its consideration of the alignment through that region. His assessment found the ARTC’s consultation at the early stages of project to be very difficult and minimal, with inadequate information being provided to community representatives. This resulted in the community not being aware of the six alignment options originally considered by the ARTC for this project, with no opportunity for the community to comment on the ‘strengths and weaknesses of the various options under consideration before ARTC's preferred alignment option was announced’.
4.20
Mr Gary Hardgrave, the Chair of the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton CCC, spoke of efforts by the ARTC to consult with the community, which included the establishment of a professional team tasked with engaging with local councils and to conduct public forums. According to Mr Hardgrave, these consultation processes were ‘very overt’ with ‘ample opportunities for formal and, indeed, casual interaction, both with elected officials and the general public’.
4.21
The committee sought clarification about how the ARTC utilised its public consultation processes and whether residents’ concerns were understood by the ARTC. In response, Mr Hardgrave explained CCC meetings were minuted, provided to the ARTC and published, adding that the ARTC would be well aware of the issues raised by the community, particularly their concerns about the proposed route and the lack of interconnection with local industrial and commercial hubs. He was sympathetic to the ARTC, arguing that genuine effort was being made by its representatives to consult with the Logan City community. However, the primary issue was the ARTC’s inability to address the community’s concerns, because responsibility for addressing those issues, including the selection of the alignment, was a matter for the Australian and Queensland governments. Mr Hardgrave concluded that ultimately it was the Queensland Government that needed to come to the table because ‘[t]he state, under the Constitution, control land use. They control[s] the use of the track, because they own the track’.
4.22
This tension between the ARTC’s jurisdictional restrictions and capacity to respond to community concerns was also raised by the Southern Brisbane Suburban Forum. The Forum’s representative, Mr Max Hooper asserted that the primary issue was the coordination and accessibility of information between levels of government:
It's quite hard to get access to some of the information, but my understanding is that ARTC's scope is to get the project to Acacia Ridge. So they have a very defined scope, which is: the project starts at the port of Melbourne and it gets to Acacia Ridge. Beyond that, there are other issues that come into play, but it's kind of like that's where it becomes an issue between the levels of government to coordinate how it's going to be integrated into the wider network. I'm also of the understanding that the state government is looking at a route corridor selection process from Acacia Ridge to the port, but the details of that are very hard to get a handle of. I know in the original business case ARTC had an option which I thought would have taken the pressure off the suburban passenger rail network, which was to go via the Gateway corridor. That doesn't appear to be in the scope of what's currently being considered. It's very difficult to get information on why that option is no longer being looked at. It's very closely guarded. I guess it's hard to comment because it's hard to get the details.
Local government consultation
4.23
Local council representatives also detailed their issues with the ARTC’s consultations and community engagement practices. In Queensland, Council representatives from Toowoomba, Lockyer regions and Logan City, as well as the Council of Mayors South East Queensland, all communicated a lack of meaningful engagement. These representatives all called for increased consultation with local communities, and for this engagement to actually inform decision making processes.
4.24
The Toowoomba Regional Council recognised a consistent level of engagement by the ARTC, but questioned whether this engagement and feedback provided by locals was adequately considered. The Council subsequently felt ‘that many decisions on the alignment are being made in isolation’ and called for the ‘Council’s key concerns and feedback on behalf of our community, [to] be more clearly investigated and responded to’. The Council further submitted that its ongoing negotiations with the ARTC concerning Inland Rail’s impact on council assets had not been concluded, which at the time meant the proposed alignment had not been endorsed or approved by the local council. The Council made clear of the risk taken by the ARTC to progress the reference design and EIS process without its endorsement, and that it was the ‘ARTC’s original intention and preference to be further progressed in aligning outcomes prior to the development of the reference design and an EIS submission’.
4.25
Similarly, the Lockyer Valley Regional Council submitted that there were concerns ‘about the level of meaningful community engagement’ throughout the Lockyer Valley. Its submission highlighted key failings of the ARTC’s consultation and community engagement process that limited ‘community input into the reference design’. It recognised the difficulties faced by the ARTC and that efforts were made by its staff to respond to community and individual concerns, with a ‘genuine concern for impacted communities’. However, the Lockyer Valley community found there to be limited information and generic messaging that resulted in disengagement with the consultation process.
4.26
The Lockyer Valley Regional Council also questioned the effectiveness of the ARTC’s CCC process, and was critical of the ARTC not taking up the Council’s offer to assist with the consultation process and use of its networks and local expertise other than identifying key community groups and possible venues for meetings. The Council stated that there ‘remains a perception in some parts of the community that the vast majority of the project will proceed in line with ARTC’s designs regardless of community concerns’.
4.27
For the Logan City Council, the ARTC failed to provide clarity or answers to their questions, and that a meeting between the Council and the ARTC ‘was an absolute joke’. Mayor Darren Power told the committee:
We had invited the ARTC into Logan City Council. We had them in our committee room. We asked them the questions. They didn't answer any of the questions. It was a waste of time them coming. It was an absolute joke. Sound walls—what are they doing? 'No, we don't know; we haven't done anything yet.' That was halfway through last year. Here we are now and we still haven't got anything to tell the residents. We're managing the city. Logan City Council has taken on the responsibility to manage the city. I understand that the state and federal governments are involved in this, but we're here to protect the residents and we don't think they're getting a good deal.
4.28
Overall, Mayor Power was scathing in his assessment, arguing that the ARTC’s community consultation was a pretence and a façade ‘designed to pretend as if something is happening when it’s not and when the answers aren't available’. With specific reference to a series of meeting held in December 2020, Mayor Power added:
My fellow councillors and I sat on each table. We listened to what was being presented. There were very few answers. We asked whether there were any seismic geology reports, and there were none available—'We're not taking any.' The sound walls were a complete baffle to us: it was only where the larger works were taking place that they would offer the sound walls; there was no indication that residents would be guaranteed a sound wall, despite the threat of these trains, 3.6 kilometres long, coming through—no promise. So the residents walked out of that. They were upset. I was talking to them after it was finished, and they said it was a waste of time. For them it was a waste of time.
4.29
Underpinning the Logan City Council and local residents’ criticism of the Inland Rail project is the understanding that Inland Rail will provide minimal economic advantages to the community. Of particular concern is the lack of a decision about a dedicated passenger rail service along Inland Rail’s proposed alignment. Mayor Power called on the government to give ‘back to the community by providing passenger rail from Salisbury to Beaudesert, in line with community expectations’.
4.30
In light of criticisms directed at the ARTC, the Council of Mayors South East Queensland called for increased consultation between all levels of government and the ARTC:
…I think it would be pretty consistent across our region that more engagement would never be a problem. There's obviously some sensitive balancing here across our council areas with the economic value and the impact on communities, and that needs to be consulted on. You can never have too much of that consultation. I think the three tiers of government need to work together. As was mentioned, the intergovernmental agreement has finally arrived, but that's not the end of it. We're actively working on a city deal for this region. Inland Rail and everything that comes with it, and all those other bits and pieces, should be a key consideration, and we've incorporated that in our work on the city deal. But that shouldn't be at the expense of all the other challenges we have here. So, again, I would encourage more consultation where possible and to try to balance this.
4.31
Closer to the NSW/Queensland border region, the Goondiwindi Regional Council commented that the community felt 'totally shunned and ignored by the ARTC' and was concerned by the 'divide and conquer approach adopted by the ARTC in the community process'. Its representative, Councillor Graeme Scheu, argued that the ARTC’s community consultation process was ‘totally unacceptable’, in part because it failed to utilise local knowledge. He added that ‘[t]here are numerous reports of one individual being told one thing and the next person being told something different’. In addition, the Council clarified the problem was not the amount of consultation, which was described as ‘way over the top’; rather, the ‘results of the consultations were not relayed through the system’. Councillor Scheu added:
It's very clear to me that the message our people are telling the ARTC staff on the ground is not channelling through the system to the decision-makers. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not going to say where it's falling down. I've got no idea, to answer your question. But somewhere in that chain of command there's a chink in the armour. It's not getting through to the decision-makers.
4.32
In NSW, the Gilgandra Shire Council agreed that consultations with communities along the proposed alignment were initially lacking; however, as the Inland Rail project progressed, communities were provided with additional information and the ARTC’s consultation process subsequently improved. Nevertheless, the Council submitted that the ARTC’s ‘community engagement was of the upmost disappointment and a source of constant frustration to all stakeholder groups and indeed the entire community’. This, the Council understood, was in part due to a lack of staffing resources and high staff turnover. Inadequate consultation and community engagement led to a lack of understanding about the business case and rationale for Inland Rail. Further, there was a lack of trust in the project and confusion over the timelines and progress, particularly an absence of understanding of when the community would be ‘engaged to provide feedback or have their issues and concerns addressed’.
4.33
A more positive perspective was provided by the Moree Plains Shire Council and the Parkes Shire Council. These councils described the collaborative and productive relationship they had with the ARTC. The Moree Plains Shire spoke of its good relationship with the ARTC, despite frequent changes in staffing and, at times, there being a disconnect within the ARTC. The Council understood this disconnect to be a product of the project’s complexity and any issues were subsequently addressed when raised with the ARTC. A key feature of the ARTC’s engagement with the Moree Plains community was the establishment of an office in Moree. The committee heard that this on-the-ground presence played a critical role progressing the project. The Council concluded that the ARTC ‘is doing a competent job based on slender resources for a job of this scale and complexity’. The Strathbogie Shire Council was of the view that the ARTC had become ‘more open and willing to work with [the Euroa] community…since the new CEO came on board’ but reiterated that ‘[i]t is extremely important that they do listen and do consultation. Consultation is the most important part of this’.
Industry consultation
4.34
The inquiry revealed reported inadequacies with the Australian Government’s and the ARTC’s consultation with industry representatives. Initially, consultation with industry was driven by the Department of Infrastructure’s 2014 Stakeholder Reference Group, which ‘included a broad range of representatives from across the transport and logistics industry’. Further consultation with key transport stakeholders with an interest in the freight and terminal markets in Brisbane and Melbourne was sought in mid-2018.
4.35
Despite assurances from the ARTC and the Department of Infrastructure that industry has been consulted, the committee heard otherwise from a number of industry representatives. The Queensland Trucking Association (QTA) and the Victorian Transport Association (VTA) spoke of an inadequate or completely absent consultation, with the QTA advising the committee that it had not had a conversation with the ARTC regarding the location of the end-of-service terminals and how Inland Rail would intersect with the broader supply chain network in Queensland. The VTA likewise declared there was no formal or informal communication between Victoria’s road freight industry and the ARTC, despite regular invitations for the ARTC to appear at the VTA’s annual conferences.
4.36
Another industry representative, Grain Trade Australia which represents 280 commercial grain industry entities post farm gate, spoke of the haphazard manner of the ARTC and the Australian Government’s consultation with the organisation. While conversations with local ARTC representatives did take place, what was lacking was an ‘opportunity to have a proper planning process of really looking at the grain supply chain as it currently is, where it’s evolving to and how that can fit and leverage off the Inland Rail project’. This strategic discussion, according to Grain Trade Australia, would require participation across all levels of government along the Inland Rail alignment, grain representatives, farmers and producers.
4.37
The committee heard from DA Hall, which owns multiple properties in the Millmerran region accounting for 30,000 acres. Despite the significant economic contribution made by DA Hall to the region, its representatives described its consultation with the ARTC to be ‘nothing short of disgusting’, with many questions remaining unanswered.
4.38
Whilst not explicitly critical of the ARTC’s conduct, SCT Logistics called for increased clarity about the Inland Rail project, particularly with the time frames and rollout of the project, as well as end-of-service locations in Melbourne and Brisbane.
ARTC’s response to criticism of its stakeholder and engagement process
4.39
The ARTC on numerous occasions communicated its regret for the issues encountered by various stakeholders and made clear that it had sought to learn from and improve its consultative practices. According to the ARTC, a key challenge has been meeting its engagement principles, especially at the early stages of the project (2015–17), before a formal announcement and commitment of funding had been made by the Australian Government for Inland Rail (2016–17).
4.40
The ARTC explained a contributing factor to this issue was the transparency and public knowledge of the Inland Rail project during its conception and reference design phase. It argued that had the Inland Rail project been a private sector enterprise, then it would not have been announced until the reference design phase had been completed. As explained by the ARTC in Brisbane in January 2020:
For 90 per cent, if not more, of the program, we're just getting to the end of that reference design. The difference between the public sector and the private sector is that you wouldn't really hear about a project until you got done with reference design in the private sector because they wouldn't be confident of whether they were really going to do this or not. In the public sector you do tend to hear about it a little bit earlier, way back in concept, because there's some excitement about getting out and telling the community what we can do.
4.41
Over time, the ARTC has been able to commence more detailed work to determine the precise alignment (especially for greenfield sections) and subsequently expand upon its consultation and engagement with stakeholders. As previously noted, extensive consultations 'commenced in early 2016 as a preferred alignment started to become clearer'. Consultations focused on the greenfield sections of the alignment as a means to 'progress route option comparisons where appropriate and understand relative potential impacts on' landholders, communities and Inland Rail's service offering.
4.42
For brownfield sections of Inland Rail, consultations sought to explain the proposed works, timelines and seek local feedback on impacts and designs. Overall, the purpose of its consultation activities (including the establishment of CCCs and walk in centres) is to facilitate 'a much deeper understanding of potential effects on landholders and their properties and help Inland Rail to avoid the effects or develop mitigation measures'. During its appearance at the Brisbane hearing, the ARTC acknowledged the concerns of those landholders and communities along the proposed alignment and reiterated its commitment to engage with those stakeholders:
Like any nationally significant project, Inland Rail will directly impact people, and in many cases these impacts are unavoidable. ARTC acknowledges that and acknowledges the very real concerns of many landowners along the alignment. We are committed to engaging openly, honestly and transparently with people and to working wherever we can to minimise and eliminate those impacts.
4.43
In total, the ARTC reported of there being close to 20,000 direct interactions with community members and stakeholders across multiple forums between July 2016 and December 2020. They referred to amendments made to Inland Rail based on these consultations, such as the Narromine to Narrabri project going through the Pilliga State Forest, the decision for the alignment to travel east of Narromine rather than west, and for the North Star to Border section to use more of the existing Boggabilla line.
4.44
In the later stages of the inquiry, focus turned to the ARTC’s consultation with local communities in north east Victoria. ARTC CEO, Mr Mark Campbell spoke of the ‘delicate balance’ between ‘meeting community expectations and maintaining the integrity of the asset’ and addressing ‘the competing requirements for the various asset owners’. Overall, Mr Campbell recognised consultation to be a difficult process, and one that the ARTC is ‘continuing to learn and are trying to get better and better at’.
4.45
The ARTC subsequently detailed efforts to address community concerns in Euroa, Benalla and Glenrowan. Through consultation processes, the ARTC was able to recognise the proposal made by the Benalla community was a better solution, while views across the Euroa community were divided, which undermined the effectiveness of the Inland Rail working group. He added that ongoing discussions were in place with community representatives in Glenrowan to determine the best solution.
4.46
In order to improve its consultation process, the ARTC had conducted an independent audit of its stakeholder engagement function and performance for Inland Rail in July 2015. Key findings included: a move away from consultants to instead directly employ engagement staff; the need for more engagement staff as projects progressed; increase the number of staff based in communities along Inland Rail’s alignment; and that all staff employed should be afforded with opportunities for skill improvement and training. A follow up review in October 2020 took place to assess the ARTC’s performance against recommendations made in the 2015 review. The 2020 review found there to be progress across all recommendations. In total, the number of engagement staff across communities had increased from 20 in 2018 to 49 in October 2020, all of which are employees of the ARTC, with 33 based along Inland Rail’s alignment.
4.47
The improvement to its consultation and engagement process were reflected in statements made by various witnesses during the inquiry, with specific reference to changes made since the commencement of Inland Rail CEO, Mr Richard Wankmuller. Whilst critical of the ARTC in its early stages, the Gilgandra Shire Council recognised the improvements made under the leadership of Mr Wankmuller and his executive team. On this point, the Council stated that the ARTC had become ‘responsive, available and committed to addressing the past issues and ensuring our community realises long term benefits and positive legacies from the construction’. The Council called for continuity of this positive shift within the ARTC, and called for greater visibility and presence in the community through a physical office in the town. The Moree Plains Shire Council commented that overall the relationship was mutually respectful and its members ‘appreciated the openness of the CEO, Richard Wankmuller, and his availability to discuss…key issues as they arise’. Mr Judd acknowledged improvements to the ARTC’s consultation processes under Mr Wankmuller’s leadership, but remained concerned with issues at a middle management level. Mr Richard Doyle stated that over the past 12-months the ARTC had become receptive, was listening and had adopted changes based on lobbying efforts by the community.
4.48
Concerning consultation with industry, the ARTC made reference to the Department of Infrastructure-led 2014 Key Stakeholder Reference Group that market-tested Inland Rail’s service offering. With regard to peak transport and logistics bodies, the ARTC stated that it ‘has had strong ongoing engagement…concerning Inland Rail and the importance of terminals’ and that ‘[t]his level of engagement continues’. The ARTC added that transport and logistics operators, asset owners or potential investors, major freight consignors, industry representative bodies and relevant government or public sector agencies were also being consulted as part of the joint Australian and Queensland government study into the Melbourne and Brisbane intermodal terminals.
4.49
The committee challenged the ARTC about its consultation with industry, based on evidence provided by Grain Trade Australia, the QTA and VTA. In response, the ARTC reiterated that it had ‘over many years engaged directly with key companies in the logistics and transport industries and held numerous discussions about aspects of Inland Rail’. It detailed the industry groups it was a member of, including the Australian Logistics Council, the Australasian Railway Association, the Infrastructure Association of Queensland, Roads Australia and the Queensland Major Contractors Association. With regard to the specific concerns raised by Grain Trade Australia, the QTA and the VTA, the ARTC provided the following:
Significant consultation with the grain industry has occurred to determine the best way to minimise the impact of Inland Rail construction between Narrabri and North Star (N2NS). In addition, the ARTC presented at the Australian Grains Industry conference on 31 July 2019, of which Grain Trade Australia was a conference organiser. Direct consultations occurred in 2020, with the ARTC meeting with Grain Trade Australia to discuss the planned possession strategy for construction of N2NS.
There had not been ‘specific consultation with the [QTA]’ but the ‘ARTC is always willing to consult with members of the broader transport and logistics industry’, which will be of ‘most benefit when firm proposals are developed in respect to existing or new intermodal terminals’. And,
The VTA was a key stakeholder of the 2014 Key Stakeholder Reference Group. In addition, the ARTC was an associate member for five years until 2021 and presented at numerous VTA conferences.
4.50
Whilst the ARTC provided reassurances about its consultation with the transport sector, it did however acknowledge ‘there hasn’t been a lot of ongoing consultation with the transport agencies’. Mr Wankmuller explained this was ‘not by wanting to preclude them, but by the way the process works in the time frame’ because:
…we're still trying to decide where the intermodal terminals are going and we're still in the business case phase. The business care for this project was six years ago, so we're still at the business case phase. As we come out of the business case phase they will start to select locations, the designs and reference designs will start to be done, the planning approvals will start to be made and the EIS approvals will start to go. That is the time to engage very strongly—and I would imagine you're expecting to do that—with the transport agency, because it is vital to what this picture around these intermodal terminals looks like.
4.51
The ARTC’s position was contested by the VTA. Its CEO, Mr Peter Anderson maintained that the ARTC had not directly engaged ‘with the VTA in consultation about aspects of the Inland Rail project, including terminal locations, connectivity to the ports and regional rail networks as was stated as it having with other industry stakeholders such as the ALC and specific transport companies’. Mr Anderson added that a 20-minute presentation at a conference does not constitute direct consultation, nor was ‘attending a formulative meeting in Sydney in 2014 as part of the development of the Inland Rail Project’. The VTA stood by the key issues it had identified to the committee, and called upon the ARTC to draw upon its connection with the VTA and its members to ‘provide specific perspectives that may ensure this project reaches its full potential’.
4.52
Regarding the broader consultation framework between federal and state governments, the Department of Infrastructure informed the committee that mechanisms in place include the biannual Infrastructure and Transport Ministers’ Meetings (ITMM) and the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials Committee Meetings (ITSOC) that both ‘provide a forum for intergovernmental collaboration, decision-making and progressing priorities of national importance’. A Freight Industry Reference Panel is also in place, consisting of freight and transport industry members to provide independent feedback and advice. In addition, the National Rail Action Plan, led by the National Transport Commission, supports the ‘harmonisation of standards in rolling stock and infrastructure, improve[ed] interoperability of systems, and address[es] rail workforce and skills gaps’.
Committee comment and recommendations
4.53
This inquiry has revealed significant shortcomings in the ARTC’s capacity to meaningfully engage with communities and landholders along the proposed alignment of Inland Rail. This failure has significantly undermined public trust in the ARTC and its management of Australia’s largest rail infrastructure project.
4.54
The committee can appreciate the difficulties faced by the ARTC, especially at the early stages of the project. During this time, there was minimal detailed and technical information available to provide communities and landholders with a clear understanding of Inland Rail’s alignment, its impact and potential mitigation measures. However, whilst some stakeholders have recognised improvements to the ARTC’s consultation processes over time, a substantial majority remain highly critical. In addition, the criticisms of the ARTC remain despite ample opportunity for the ARTC to revise its consultation processes based on earlier experiences.
4.55
For these stakeholders, the ARTC’s engagement, consultation and response to concerns has been overly bureaucratic and, largely symbolic, while failing to adequately address community concerns and integrate local knowledge into the project’s design. A key criticism directed at the ARTC time and again has been its lack of meaningful consultation, especially for those local governments, residents, flood and hydrology experts and landholders who felt the ARTC dismissed their local knowledge about floodplains and historical flood conditions. The impact of these failures cannot be underestimated, particularly based on the numerous presentations made to the committee by distressed residents and landholders about the mental and emotional toll the ARTC’s handling of this project has had.
4.56
The committee is encouraged by the ARTC’s efforts to learn from its past mistakes and proactively review its consultation processes. It is, however, concerned by ongoing criticisms directed at the ARTC. Of particular concern is the rupture between the ARTC and the NSW Farmers and the CWA. For Inland Rail to meaningfully proceed in NSW, it is vital that this relationship is repaired.
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.
4.58
In addition, the ARTC should foster greater consultation with local government representatives, particularly at a regional level to ensure the necessary social license of Inland Rail is gained with local governments and the communities those governments’ represent. The committee proposes the creation of local government forums.
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.
4.60
Going forward, the committee anticipates that nature of the ARTC’s consultation processes to change as the Inland Rail project progresses. For this reason, the committee is of the view that ongoing audits of its consultation processes are required to ensure the ARTC’s community consultation processes remain relevant to community, landholder and industry expectations.
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.
4.62
An important factor in the ARTC’s ability to appropriately consult and engage with local communities along the Inland Rail alignment has been the role played by the Australian and state governments. The Australian Government has established the parameters of the Inland Rail project, which has substantially limited the ARTC’s capacity to meaningfully respond to community concerns, particularly if those concerns are directly related to the proposed alignment and the 24-hour journey time (as discussed in Chapter 2). Further, various issues raised with the ARTC remain outside the scope of the Inland Rail project. In these circumstances the ARTC is unable to respond, but communities are left with an inadequate understanding of how Inland Rail will connect and integrate with the existing infrastructure of those communities. It remains unclear to the committee whether a broader consultation and engagement framework is in place for the Australian and state governments to participate in, and address broader concerns interrelated to Inland Rail but outside the scope of the project. This perceived gap must be addressed, particularly for those communities located between Toowoomba and Acacia Ridge.
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.
4.64
A successful Inland Rail project is reliant upon its capacity to integrate with existing agricultural, freight and logistics infrastructure. A significant gap identified during this inquiry is the ARTC’s ad hoc approach to regular consultation with industry representatives, particularly with the trucking sector. Whilst references were made to previous and ongoing mechanisms in place, the committee sees significant benefit in establishing a key industry stakeholder group to formalise ongoing discussions between industry, the ARTC and the Australian Government. This measure would ensure Inland Rail is in a position to capitalise on the expertise and innovation available to those sectors vested in 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.