Bill Introduced by Minister Sam Farraway to the Upper House to amend Transport Administration Act (TAA) 1988 on 21st June 2022 – Objections and Suggestions
Northern Railway Defenders Forum wishes to express its objections to the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails) Bill 2022 introduced by Minister Sam Farraway to the Upper House on 21st June, 2022. It is to be debated in the next session of NSW parliament in August. We urge you to object to this Bill, significantly amend it or at least refer it to a parliamentary inquiry so that residents of regional NSW, who have not been consulted about the Bill by any means, can make submissions. We are approaching parliamentarians like you, to be aware of the unintended consequences of the Bill on regional rail renewal for the foreseeable future and exercise caution before voting to approve it.
Grounds for our objection are as follows:
1. The Bill contradicts several objectives of the TAA “with respect to the administration of the transport services provided to the people of New South Wales”. This is due to the temporary limitations that can be imposed by the Minister, for up to 30 years, on non-operational regional rail lines to be able to effectively operate rail services-private and public- for passengers, freight or heritage/tourism trains. Contradictions to the TAA can be seen in objective (b) to promote the integration of the transport system, (c) to enable effective planning and delivery of transport infrastructure and services, (d) to facilitate the mobilisation and prioritisation of key resources across the transport sector, and (e) to co-ordinate the activities of those engaged in the delivery of transport services.
2. In the Bill, usage of the term ‘transport’ totally and absolutely excludes rail transport as a viable form of mobility (goods and people) in regional NSW.
3. It will create material and bureaucratic obstacles for future rail services in regional areas, especially those sponsored by the private sector e.g. freight and community organisations e.g. heritage rail. Councils will faithfully follow the letter of the Bill, if not the spirit, when any new proposal for rail services is submitted for approval.
4. It does not equalise the powers of government in relation to metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in relation to non-operational rail lines. In metropolitan areas, a rail line/corridor can be closed for building state significant infrastructure whereas in regional NSW, even if a rail line is removed the line/corridor is not closed.
5. Unequal treatment of transport services between one mode and another i.e. roads and rail will not have an integrated plan in the long term due to the lack of government plans for regional rail renewal.
6. It reinforces single use of a rail corridor concept rather than the multi-use concept. The latter is popular in transport economics and projects like Parramatta Light rail. Byron Bay Council is also examining its use.
7. The Bill has the potential to further divide regional communities supporting rail services vs rail trails vs roads rather than uniting them.
8. The Bill will allow unjustified intrusions on public rail assets that can best be improved for regional prosperity for recreational, public transport or freight services. Constructing roads or road related infrastructure such as roundabouts, after removing existing rail infrastructure, can cause an obstacle to any proposal for reinstating rail services.
9. It is premised on the assumption that currently the government does not have plans to renew rail services in non-metropolitan regions in NSW but does not consider policy changes that may come about after changes of government in the future.
10. The Bill does promise to return the rail corridor for future rail services if required but it is an empty promise without concrete government plans to renew regional rail services for the period up to 2040-2050.
11. Compared to current practice, it lacks parliamentary oversight and gives too much power to the Minister and executive.
12. It was introduced to the Upper House without adequate consultation with regional community organisations working hard to retain and redevelop non-operational regional rail lines.
Instead of evening out the inequalities between cities and regional areas by investing in bigger and better regional rail infrastructure and the policy inaction in this area over the last three decades, this Bill will further increase such inequalities. Multiple material obstacles and the powers being given to the Minister to approve temporary infrastructure not related to rail services, will exacerbate these differences to the detriment of regional areas.
Our view is that the government needs to focus on macro level, integrated transport plans -road and rail - to facilitate developments in a broad suite of areas such as health, education, and the environment, along with tourism.
Presently, there is no integrated transport plan for regional NSW that involves roads as well as rail services - public and private - that adopts a multi-use rail corridor concept. An integrated transport plan needs to be developed for the State. It should address how roads and rail services will interact with existing and planned cycle tracks or rail trails? It will be a win-win situation for all concerned.
At a time when the Federal and State governments are developing policies to address climate change, energy issues and natural disasters such as floods and bushfires, why doesn’t the State Government focus on regional rail renewal by restoring non-operational rail lines, wherever possible and appropriate, instead of converting them to roads or rail trails as proposed in the Bill to Amend the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails and Roads) Act 2022?
While we recognise the importance of regional tourism for regional growth, we believe dialogue should start from the perspective of what is required in regional NSW to genuinely equalise transport options between city and regional areas, and bring with them additional business, service and employment opportunities. NSW State government needs to work with various community organisations who have proposals for rail tourism in non-metropolitan areas, and commercial businesses looking to restore rail lines to transport their goods from regional locations to intermodal terminals or ports. It appears to us that the current bill bypasses such opportunities that are there in the regions, a result of poor consultation with a cross section of the regional communities.
We strongly recommend that before decommissioning any non-operational rail line in non-metropolitan area in NSW to construct infrastructure related to a rail trail or a road, a feasibility study should be undertaken to ascertain the line’s viability. This should be mandatory. This needs to be reflected in the proposed Bill to amend the TAA.
Dr. Siri Gamage
Co-convenor, Northern Railway Defenders Forum