I support the concept of the Inland Rail from the Port of Melbourne to the Port of Brisbane. However the process conducted by ARTC and Inland Rail leave a lot to be desired.
Consultation
The consultation conducted by ARTC and Inland Rail has had continuous criticism from the public. Evidence given is that they were not consulted or considered in where or what impact the rail would have on their lives or environment.
It was only because of the committee did people feel they finally had a voice and pressure was put on ARTC and Inland Rail to listen to the communities.
Cost
The committee has made reference to the cost blowout of the project that now stands at $14.5 billion. In addition to this, from the Project Description section of the G2H Draft, EIS appears to provide some of the PPP costs which includes all Queensland sections including the Border to Gowrie and Kagaru to Acacia Ridge sections which are not part of the PPP, with figures detailed below:
total PPP construction cost $3,3000,018 ($3.3b);
approx. 24% for indirect costs $792,0004,324; and
total PPP cost $4,092,022,342 ($4B).
Additional to these costs, which have not been calculated, are the anticipated costs of building tunnels and track from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. Again, this is an additional cost in the vicinity of $2.8 billion and yet the ARTC claim it will be using existing track.
Port of Brisbane and Acacia Ridge
It has been determined that the Inland Rail trains have to unload and potentially reload to use an existing passenger line to the Port of Brisbane. This double handling of goods can only increase the time and cost of delivering goods to the Port of Brisbane. If product is not destined for the Port, then it will be transported by truck to various destinations from a highly congested terminal that is at its peak capacity at this present point in time.
Therefore, why is the ARTC persistent in its planning to have Acacia Ridge as it central point for the distribution centre for the cargo whether that be to the Port of Brisbane or other destinations?
This is short sighted and lacks foresight into the future especially if we are expecting growth and the whole concept of the ARTC is to promote growth or it will wither on the vine.
I must reiterate that Acacia Ridge should not be the used. People from the surrounding suburbs estimated at 50,000 residents have very strongly opposed any support for the Inland Rail’s destination being Acacia Ridge. Their concerns are based around noise pollution, vibration and congestion.
This is not to be overlooked when evidence given stated that the number of trains a day could be approximately 38 or more.
Additionally, these trains are initially 1.8 km long which puts them outside the Acacia Ridge terminal regardless of the expectation to increase the length by double in the future.
If these trains intend to use the passenger train line to the port, then the majority of their frequency must be during the night which will impact on residents further.
Port of Gladstone
It is pointless to have an Inland Rail Line if it doesn’t take advantage of loading or unloading produce or product in hubs throughout inland Australia, to enhance profits and pay for the building of the infrastructure.
In my opinion, if we bypass making a firm decision now to build the line directly to Gladstone via Miles at a cost of approximately $3.5 billion, we will not do it in the future and a great opportunity will be lost. A lost opportunity to create jobs, growth and opportunity to this rural community.
Evidence given was very strongly in favour of the line to Gladstone which would be utilised by coal mines in the area that indicated that they would start projects and create development and jobs if the line was made available to them. That potential would not be available with the line only going to Acacia Ridge.
The Port of Gladstone, which is capable of taking more ships than the Port of Brisbane, is a lot more viable for the long-term growth and the line would pay for itself in no time with the increased use of the line. Equally, both the Port of Gladstone and the Port of Brisbane are unanimous in the fact both ports could and would work together for mutual benefit and for the benefit of the nation.
Queensland Inland Rail projects
The alternate proposed routes from Toowoomba to the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone should be investigated, to take into account my previous suggestion. The cost savings alone in not having to construct a 6.2 km tunnel through the Toowoomba range is estimated at approximately $6 billion although the ARTC has not disclosed this costing on the claim it is “Commercial in Confidence”.
The plans to take the line via Millmerran to Toowoomba is not only a huge cost to the taxpayer reclaiming land and established farms and infrastructure, but also the stupidity of ignoring sound advice from locals and professional hydrologists with regards to major flooding issues across the black soil plains. The last flood and the devastation it left leaves no doubt to anyone what damage flooding causes in the area.
If the ARTC and the Australian Government is insistent to go solely via Toowoomba then a viable alternate route has been proposed across brown fields approximately 6 km from the proposed line, that would not impact on residents, water flows or infrastructure and the resultant cost reduction would be massive both to the construction cost and hence to the taxpayer.
Local businesses
This is a massive Australian infrastructure project that should result in Australian companies’ participation as well as their workforce. The supply of steel as well as other materials particularly in these economic times due to the pandemic would ensure their ongoing viability for those Australian companies and Australians generally.
However, it has come to my attention as well as other offices, that irrespective of the fact that Australian companies have designed various components of the line that the final contracts were not awarded to those companies but in fact given to Chinese suppliers.
One has to look at the overall project managing company which is now totally controlled by its Chinese parent company to realise why major supply contracts are now being sourced from China and not to preferred Australian companies that are ready, willing and able to do so.
So, I ask the government, where is the benefit to Australia and Australians particularly at this point in time?
General observations
Throughout the enquiry we asked, who is actually in control and who makes the decisions. The ARTC tells us it is the government determining the planning, and yet the government tells us it’s the ARTC. So, in fact nobody knows who is in control.
With the cost of this project nearing $20 Billion and with no sound business case, it is a disgrace on the Australian Government and the bureaucrats. If this is not to become a white elephant, the Australian government must listen to the sound advice given from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee who have listened to the concerns of ordinary Australians who do not oppose the Inland Rail, but want to see value for money and a viable, much needed project that can only make our nation more prosperous.
Senator Pauline Hanson
One Nation Party