Parliamentary Speeches
AUSLINK SYDNEY TO BRISBANE CORRIDOR STRATEGY ( 06/06/2007)
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [6.14 p.m.]: Recently the Federal, Queensland and New South Wales governments released an AusLink paper on the Sydney to Brisbane transport corridor. As the Pacific Highway, a critical transport link in this corridor, passes through the centre of the Ballina electorate, I will make some comments about the AusLink strategy and transport issues on the Sydney to Brisbane corridor. The AusLink paper, on which I made a submission, makes the forecast on page 22:
Freight on the Sydney to Brisbane corridor will almost triple over the period to 2029, rising from approximately 7 million tonnes to approximately 17 million tonnes ? This compares to an expected doubling of freight on most other AusLink corridors.
This prediction has serious policy implications, especially in light of the forecast population increases in the Sydney to Brisbane corridor over the same period; the projected large increase in tourism numbers visiting destinations along the corridor; and the fact that less than 40 per cent of the Pacific Highway between Newcastle and Queensland border is dual carriageway. As regards implications, firstly, there is a need to accelerate the upgrade of the Newcastle to Ewingsdale section of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway. Mixing heavy freight traffic with local and tourist traffic on a road that is not dual carriageway but mostly single-lane each way is a recipe for disaster given the forecast threefold increase in freight load on this corridor.
The current Pacific Highway agreement between the State and Federal governments is due to expire in June 2009. I believe we must see a major additional injection of funding to the Pacific Highway both by State and Federal governments if a dual carriageway is to be a reality within the next decade. The increasing cost of land and the increasing cost of road building means that at current funding levels a dual carriageway between Newcastle and the Queensland border will be more than a decade away. Clearly, safety is the key issue here and every effort has to be made to tackle this problem as urgently as possible.
Secondly, the current poor state of large sections of the Pacific Highway is also adversely affecting the tourism industry. Notwithstanding the popularity of air travel to destinations such as Coolangatta and Byron Bay, most tourists who travel to this coastal strip still do so by car. A recent survey by the New South Wales Business Chamber showed that 83 per cent of North Coast businesses think the condition of the Pacific Highway is a deterrent to people considering a driving holiday on the North Coast.
Thirdly, the forecast trebling of the freight load on the Sydney to Brisbane corridor begs the question: How much more of this freight can be carried by rail or by sea? As regards rail, even with the Australian Rail Track Corporation's current investment program in interstate rail freight through the AusLink program, at the conclusion of this investment in 2009 I understand the volume of freight carried on this corridor by rail will still be a maximum of about 33 per cent. Surely for non-time sensitive freight, or bulk freight, the rail system could be better utilised. Rail is much safer and more greenhouse friendly, at a time when we all need to be proactive in reducing carbon emissions.
It has been suggested to me by the general manager of an abattoir employing almost 1,000 people in our region that freight should be classified as either ``time sensitive`` or ``not time sensitive`` and that businesses should not be able to send ``not time sensitive`` freight by road. This businessman, for example, orders cartons in bulk every six months or so and says there is no good reason why that freight has to come by road. He argues it should come by rail, or ship and road, and he says he would happily comply with a system that required these ``non time sensitive`` deliveries to come by rail or ship, if practical, instead of road.
In relation to sea freight, a major freight corridor for Sydney-Brisbane is the Pacific Ocean, yet it is not really used for domestic freight movements. Why? I understand it has something to do with maritime union objections, which is clearly ridiculous in this day and age. Again, like rail, there is good reason why ``not time sensitive`` freight should travel on ships. The Australian and State governments should look at this option and remove the current impediments that prevent this from happening. Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle and Brisbane all have good deep-sea ports, so why is shipping along the Australian east coast not used as a serious domestic freight corridor? We already have the infrastructure in place and it is certainly much safer than the Pacific Highway.
Fourthly, an opportunity exists to separate heavy road freight from local coastal traffic by way of an inland freight route. For example, it would make a lot of sense to have an inland freight route from Beaudesert, where a large intermodal terminal is to be built, that travels south, east of Mount Lindsay, and along the Summerland Way to Grafton, but bypassing all the major towns along the way?that is, Kyogle, Casino and Grafton.
Members representing the electorates of Lismore and Clarence also support the proposal. This would not alleviate the need to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway, but it would, in time, make sense to separate interstate heavy vehicle traffic from local and tourist traffic on the growing coastal strip. Fifth, I notice on page 15 that the worst section of the Pacific Highway for casualty crashes is the section from McLean to Byron Bay. Clearly, priority needs to be given to upgrade this section. I urge both State and Federal governments to consider, and act upon, the points I made in my submission, some of which I have summarised today.
