Copyright © Government of South Australia 2002
All legislation herein is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Copyright. The Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth) permits certain reproduction and publication of South Australian legislation. In particular s. 182A of the Act enables a complete copy to be made by or on behalf of a particular person. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Act, permission should be sought in writing from the South Australian Attorney-General's Department. Requests in the first instance should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

RAIL TRANSPORT FACILITATION FUND BILL
The Hon. DEAN BROWN (Minister for Human Services) obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to facilitate rail transport by establishing a fund dedicated for the purpose; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this Bill is to create a Rail Transport Facilitation Fund from which the Government can undertake rail facilitation projects, and to provide specific appropriation authority for the expenditure of the Fund on such projects.

As a consequence of the Non-Metropolitan Railways (Transfer) Act 1997 , the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning now owns substantial railway land and assets, including railway station buildings at various locations in SA, and rail track infrastructure on the South East, Wallaroo and Leigh Creek lines.

The growth in the freight task across Australia is forecast to continue to increase at a rate greater than GDP. At current growth rates, and in the absence of significant increases in the share of freight carried by rail, the tonnages moved by road are forecast by the Bureau of Transport Economics to increase by 80 per cent by 2015. The South Australian articulated road freight vehicle task is forecast to increase by 50 per cent between 2000 and 2010, from 12.1 to 18. 12 billion net tonne kilometres.

The Government is committed to promoting a modal transfer of more interstate and intrastate freight from road to rail. If the forecast increase in the freight task is addressed only by an increase in heavy vehicles-road use and congestion will also increase, as will road risks and network maintenance costs. From an environmental perspective, over certain routes, rail is able to transport three times the tonnage for the same expenditure of energy and can thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air and noise pollution.

The ability to invest in appropriate railway projects, and the identification of funds for that purpose, will:

· provide a more competitive transport framework for SA primary and secondary industries;

· address safety, greenhouse gas and pollution issues as part of transport infrastructure investment decisions;

· facilitate transport policy and planning across transport modes.

Projects currently approved or under consideration for Government support include the Port River Expressway rail bridge and the South East rail line standardisation. Investment in rail projects will also enhance the commercial ability of the Adelaide to Darwin Railway to attract additional rail freight, thus enhancing the SA Government's investment in that project.

The Rail Transport Facilitation Fund Bill 2001

The Solicitor General has advised that specific appropriation authority is required for the Government to undertake rail facilitation projects. This need is addressed by the Rail Transport Facilitation Fund Bill 2001 .

The Bill creates a Rail Transport Facilitation Fund which will comprise income derived from the sale and leasing of rail assets (except as excluded by the Treasurer) and any income derived from rail facilitation projects. Other funds can be paid into the Fund, such as Commonwealth funds for a rail-related purpose and, with the Treasurer's concurrence, other monies. The Bill enables any funds currently in the Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts Operating Account for rail facilitation projects to be transferred to the Fund.

The Bill provides appropriation authority for expenditures from the Fund on a broad range of rail facilitation projects targeted at freight and non-metropolitan passenger services. The Bill specifically excludes the expenditure of funds on metropolitan passenger rail services. Projects can range from capital investment through to the purchase of equipment or materials. The Bill allows for funds to be disbursed as grants or loans.

I commend the bill to this House.

Explanation of clauses

Clause 1: Short title

This clause is formal.

Clause 2: Commencement

The measure will be brought into operation by proclamation.

Clause 3: Interpretation

This clause provides two definitions for the purposes of the measure.

Clause 4: Establishment of Fund

The Rail Transport Facilitation Fund is to be established. The Fund will consist of money appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the Fund, income derived from certain rail activities, other money received for payment into the Fund or that should, according to a determination of the Minister after consultation with the Treasurer, be paid into the Fund, and income derived from the investment of the Fund.

Clause 5: Rail facilitation projects

The Minister will be able to apply money from the Fund towards rail facilitation projects, as defined by subclause (2), other than projects for the facilitation of metropolitan passenger rail services.

Clause 6: Appropriation and authorisation

This measure is sufficient authority for the payment of money from the Fund, without further appropriation. The Minister is also given specific authority to carry out rail facilitation projects.

Mrs GERAGHTY secured the adjournment of the debate.

(Continued from 26 September. Page 2269.)

Mr ATKINSON (Spence): This bill has been occasioned by the commonwealth's dispensing with Australian National, that is, Australian National Railways. Owing to that event, a number of railway properties, buildings and track have been donated to the state as a result of the Non-Metropolitan Railways Transfer Act 1997. Among the tracks given back to the state is the broad gauge line from Wolseley (near Bordertown) down to Mount Gambier. That line once ran into another broad gauge line from Adelaide to Melbourne but, owing to the standardisation of the track in about 1995, the broad gauge line up from Mount Gambier to Wolseley ends in a standard gauge main line.

It is the hope of the government that by selling or leasing these railway properties it can raise money for railway works and among the works the government has in mind is the standardisation of the Wolseley to Mount Gambier track so that it would fit in with a standardised main line between Adelaide and Melbourne and the construction of a rail bridge as part of the third river crossing at Port Adelaide. One would have thought that using its normal appropriation authority the government could channel money, raised through the sale or lease of these properties and buildings, to these railway projects. However, an opinion by the Solicitor-General, Mr Brad Selway, has raised doubt about whether the general appropriation authority can be used for railway purposes. In his opinion on this matter the Solicitor-General says:

Historically the development of railways has always given rise to a specific statute authorising such development. The statute books of this state contain many such acts. There are various historical and constitutional reasons for this. However, given that practice there must be some doubt whether it is the function of any government department, or indeed the government as a whole, to spend money for the development of a railway other than primary work without specific legislative authorisation.

If I may interpolate there, after the sale of the state's sale of the non-metropolitan railways to the commonwealth in 1975, the state government got out of the business of non-metropolitan railways. Mr Selway goes on:

Since at least that time-

that is, 1975-

it has not been the ordinary business of any state government department or indeed of the state government itself to develop or operate or to assist in the development or operation of non-metropolitan railways.

The Solicitor-General concludes:

I think it would be inappropriate and probably improper to use an existing appropriation authority for such a payment.

Section 3 of our state Constitution says:

A bill for appropriating revenue or other public money for any previous authorised purpose shall not contain any provision appropriating revenue or other public money for any purpose other than a previously authorised purpose.

Accordingly, the government has introduced this bill to authorise appropriation for non-metropolitan railways. The bill quite specifically rules out in clause 5 the expenditure of money on projects for the facilitation of metropolitan passenger railway services.

I notice that when the Minister for Transport first canvassed the bill in another place she thought that the leasing or sell off of these railway properties may eventually raise as much as $10 million. It is not that the government intends to run the Wolseley to Mount Gambier line, if indeed it is standardised and goes back into operation, but rather it is the intention of the government to lease that track, as I understand it, to a private operator, and three private operators have been short-listed for this purpose.

The other issue on which Mr Selway was asked to give an opinion was whether the state could require the commonwealth to contribute to the cost of the standardisation of the Wolseley-Mount Gambier line under the Railway Standardisation Agreement of 1949, which led to the State Railways Standardisation Agreement Act 1949. Under clause 14 of the agreement, seven-tenths of the total cost of the standardisation works were to be met by the commonwealth, but the Solicitor-General is quite adamant that South Australia cannot rely on that 1949 agreement, and he says that in 1961 a case on this point went to the High Court, and the High Court decided that the commonwealth was not under any legal obligation pursuant to the agreement. If we were to try to insist on that agreement it would be a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth since the commonwealth has been kind enough to return these non- metropolitan railway properties and buildings to us, despite our selling them to the commonwealth in 1975. The minister with us today was there when that very agreement-

The Hon. Dean Brown: That is why we have ended up with this land. The commonwealth government used it automatically.

Mr ATKINSON: That is something I did not know: it was a question I was going to ask, but the minister has anticipated me, that is, that under the 1975 agreement if the commonwealth did not use the tracks-

The Hon. Dean Brown interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister and the member for Spence may like to formalise this discussion during the opportunities that will be provided in the debate.

Mr ATKINSON: Well, sir, I think the minister is quite helpful in explaining to the House that, under the 1975 agreement on non-metropolitan railways, if the commonwealth did not use the track or the property then it would revert to state ownership. I recall that the minister at the time in 1975 was a tremendous opponent of the transfer of non-metropolitan railways to the commonwealth. Indeed, the Premier of the day, Don Dunstan, called an election on this very issue. This was the failure of the then Liberal opposition to consent to the transfer of non-metropolitan railways to the commonwealth, but as things turned out it seems to have been rather a good deal because we sold them this property and now they have had to give it back to us for nothing. Maybe after 26 years the minister has a different view of his party's decision to oppose the transfer of the non- metropolitan railways to the then Whitlam government. Perhaps he will enlighten us on what is his opinion. Perhaps the member for Schubert will enlighten us on whether the 1975 agreement was a good deal. Certainly at this remove it looks like a good deal to me. With those remarks, the opposition supports the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert): I certainly support this bill and also note the comments by the member for Spence. The object of this bill is to create a rail transport fund, as the minister and member for Spence were just discussing across the House, to allow the government to undertake rail facilitation projects and to provide specific authority for the expenditure of such projects. I, too, appreciate the information from the minister a second ago. Railways and also, I believe, rail corridors, handed back from the commonwealth government to the state can either be sold and/or leased and we can then create this fund.

I would like to comment on the challenge from the member for Spence a few moments ago; I think the sale of the South Australian Railways by the Dunstan government in 1975 is one of the worst things that any government in South Australia has done, particularly at that time. We never got any money for them; they were handed in as a liability and taken over, and all that did was close down a lot of our country lines. We lost all our local parcel and passenger services. It meant that country people lost a great asset. I thought it was incongruous that the city kept its rail services, which ran at huge losses, but they were not allowed to run at huge losses in country regions. It smacked of Dunstanism, and I think it was one of the worst things he ever did.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: They will be coming back. These corridors that were closed down right through the north were valuable not only for passengers and freight but, more importantly, for the grain. We now have ports such as Wallaroo that have no rail connection whatsoever. In the old days it used to be connected through Snowtown and Brinkworth into some of the best grain growing country areas in this state, but when SAR went we lost all those lines. The corridors are still there, but there are no lines, and it is pretty sad. I think that on reflection any member of this House would say that it was not a good move and certainly we lost a very valuable asset.

The ability to invest in appropriate rail projects and identify funds for that purpose will provide a more competitive transport framework for South Australian primary and secondary industries. It will address safety, greenhouse gas and pollution issues as part of the transport infrastructure investment decisions.

Projects currently approved and/or under consideration for government support include the Port River expressway rail bridge-a project in which I have taken a lot of interest- and, as the member for Spence has alluded to, the South-East rail line standardisation, that is, Wolseley to Mount Gambier. Investments in rail projects such as this will also enhance the commercial ability of the Adelaide to Darwin railway to attract rail freight, thus enhancing the South Australian government's investment in that project. As we said, we spent a lot of money on this and we now have to make it work. The way you make it work is to upgrade the network that is behind it. The Solicitor- General has advised that specific appropriation authority is required for the government to undertake rail projects. This need is addressed in the bill.

The growth in freight task across Australia is forecast to continue to increase at a greater rate than the GDP. At current growth rates, and in the absence of significant increases in the share of freight carried by rail, the tonnage moved by road is forecast by the Bureau of Transport Economics to increase by 80 per cent by 2015. The South Australian articulated road freight vehicle task is forecast to increase by 50 per cent over the next 10 years. That is a staggering statistic-from 12.1 billion to 18.12 billion net tonne kilometres. They are huge numbers and alarming statistics.

I believe it is very important that we actively promote the intermodal transfer of more interstate and intrastate freight from road to rail. If we do not address the issue of the increase in road freight, we will only see an increased in the rate of problems that we already experience on the roads with the heavy transports travelling on them. This is very dangerous on some of our roads, which are not designed to carry heavy freight transport as well as cars. As we all know, cars and trucks do not mix, and this certainly causes a lot of anxieties. A lot of our road fatalities are caused just by that, with huge trucks, B-doubles and even A-trains, in collisions with small family sedans; we have certainly seen some traumatic accidents.

With the Adelaide to Darwin railway project going full steam ahead, I am confident that we will see a very large and efficient intermodal operation at Port Augusta. I know the member for Stuart certainly supports that, and he certainly pushes his case very hard. That could well become the freight hub not only of South Australia but also of Australia. I firmly believe that we will see many other intermodal hubs established throughout South Australia and indeed throughout Australia, connecting through to Port Augusta and on to Darwin.

Members know that I am a great advocate of rail and its definite advantages to carry very heavy loads very long distances and at very beneficial economies of scale. Realistically speaking, large shipments of non-perishables should all be carried on rail. I understand that, when you are carrying perishable goods on a tight time frame, particularly over a distance, semis and B-doubles are the way to go.

I am not in any way saying that road transporters do not have their place; in fact, they play a vital role in the whole efficient process. However, we need to ramp up the use of intermodal transfer systems from road to rail. I believe that any effort that the government can make to assist the improvement of intermodal activities will not adversely affect road transports. However, what can go on rail should go on rail, particularly on the Melbourne to Perth route and also on the other intercity routes across Australia. I wonder why we see so much traffic on the Melbourne to Sydney road; that is the horror road of Australia. I know it carries perishable goods, but surely a lot of that freight should be on the railway line where it would not cause those problems.

We need to win back the confidence of business to use rail, as they did in years past. We potentially have a very good rail network in this country, and I believe it is under-utilised. I want to cite one case in the Barossa. We have there a rail line which is used daily. It is used only to cart rock from Penrice to the city.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: There is one train a day; one up and one back at 11 o'clock. There is no reason at all why, if they were encouraged, the wine industries could not cart glass, cork and everything else-apart from the wine, which is usually ordered for next-day delivery-on the railway line. Much work has been done to encourage that. It has not happened yet, but be assured that if an opportunity is there I will be promoting it.

The whole matter of rail and related issues takes me to a rail project in my electorate of Schubert. The newest one, which was opened just last week, is the refurbished railway line from Tanunda to Angaston. I am very pleased that after two years of arguing and wrangling we have eventually upgraded the railway line from Nuriootpa, so now the Barossa tourist train can go right through to Angaston. The member for Bragg, the Hon. Graham Ingerson, did a lot of work in lobbying the federal government, and we got the funds, but the private operators, through their contractors, wanted $60 000 per year just to upgrade those five kilometres of track. We argued that for a long time and, eventually-I do not know how they did it-we have come to an agreement and the train is now travelling to Angaston, so the total Barossa experience by rail is now complete. This goes to prove that if you keep at it long enough and keep pushing the argument you will eventually break through.

I also want to comment on the Port River expressway rail bridge and the port upgrade that goes with it. As this election draws near, I am a little concerned that negotiations are not complete, because we have no guarantee from the Labor side of politics that they would go on with this. This is probably the most vital piece of infrastructure that could occur for the economy of South Australia, because grain is still our largest long-term export and income earner. Certainly, the wine industry is pushing it very hard right now, but over the long term I believe grain will still be our biggest source of income. Given the port inefficiencies that we currently have, this is a great opportunity for us to address that matter. This rail bridge over the Port River is vital; then we could have trains delivering grain to Outer Harbor.

Two issues are involved here. The bridge has to be constructed very soon so that we can put the train straight over it to the port of Outer Harbor and, hopefully, with the sale process that is currently under way, we will see the deepening of the port to 14 metres so that we can get not only the large grain ships but also the large container vessels in there. We can then have an efficient port of world standard. Grain will be able to be delivered there by train straight from the silos in the country, rather than being delivered by road, which would clog up the roads in the Port Adelaide district. We are on the brink of some major breakthroughs in efficiencies with regard to the selling of a major project. I look forward to this project with confidence. However, I am also concerned because this project is uncontracted as we are going into an election period and is not all tied up. If the Labor side of politics gave us a commitment-or at least told us of its policy in relation to this matter-I would certainly sleep a lot easier. Projects such the port and the railway line connecting it are very important and should not be abandoned just because there is a change in the government of the day.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Ross Smith tells me that the bidders have until tomorrow. I know nothing of this matter, as it is under strict probity. At this time, I again declare my interest as a shareholder of AusBulk. I do not believe that AusBulk is involved in the discussions at present, but I am not sure. I look forward not only to the rail bridge, which is of critical importance, but also to the loop rail that goes with it, that is, the rail coming down from the main line, as it does currently, over the Port River and then to Outer Harbor. When it gets there, a loop line is provided so that trains do not have to back out. We are now putting in technology in country silos-especially those on the near verges such as those at Roseworthy and Tailem Bend-that will give them the ability to load trains five carriages at a time. In other words, a train can be loaded in 40 minutes instead of four hours. When the trains arrive here, they can be unloaded just as quickly, because they do not have to be backed out, and there can be a train right behind it.

Rather than have huge amounts of storage on ground when ships come in, the grain can be brought in the train as the ship is there, because the trains can very quickly be turned around. That loop line has been a dream at Port Adelaide for years, but there was not space to put it in. However, now at Outer Harbor we have the space, and it will go in. I am fairly sure that the Liberal government will win the election, but if we do not I hope that the Labor government will pick up that project and continue with it. As I said, that rail bridge is a very important pivotal part of the whole project.

The south-eastern rail standardisation project from Wolseley to Mount Gambier has potential. We have had private operators wishing to become involved in that. They have privately lobbied me. I take my hat off to the minister, because she certainly has not rushed in here full bore. She has considered the situation carefully. If we can get that Wolseley-Mount Gambier line open it would give us so much more flexibility with what we can do in the South- East, particularly with our being able to use the port of Portland, as well as other areas. We will be able not only to get the freight and pine products out by rail but also hopefully to get a passenger service back to one of our pivotal regional cities, that is, Mount Gambier, as it always used to be.

The last project I wish to discuss is a bit futuristic-the Adelaide rail bypass, which has been spoken of for some years now. Some people are opposed to it, because they think it could take Adelaide off line, although I do not believe it will. We have concerns about freight coming through some of our suburbs because it creates noise, and so on. A lot of that freight does not really need to come into Adelaide. It could bypass Adelaide and go to the intermodal operation, say, at Port Augusta or north of Adelaide. The bypass railway line could go to Murray Bridge, Apamurra, Cambrai or Sedan and then either into Angaston and into the city or directly north to Eudunda on the old corridor which is still there and connect up with the railway line north. Then you have the full option of going either way. This is a very timely bill. As members can see, I am pretty passionate about rail, and it is a matter of commonsense, because over the years rail has been a big part of our history. There is no reason why rail could not be a great advantage to South Australia, particularly regional South Australia.

(Continued from page 2419.)

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders): Our Liberal government has a progressive objective in relation to the development of South Australia for the benefit of future generations. This bill is groundbreaking in that it brings together many different needs on a state basis-something that has never previously been done by rail in this state. As the member representing Eyre Peninsula, I am perhaps more aware of this than most other members in the House. The Eyre Peninsula division of the former South Australian Railways made a profit in some years. That resulted directly from the tonnages transported by rail. Those who worked in the division contributed to the development and success of the rail system, enduring the harsh conditions that prevailed particularly in the first half of last century to provide a lifeline to remote settlements and towns. The proud record of those men and of the times is being preserved in the Eyre Peninsula Railway Museum operated by the Eyre Peninsula Railway Preservation Society in the former Port Lincoln railway station. Like most businesses that are run by governments rather than private enterprise, management's decisions in the past did not keep abreast of the reality of the business world.

Therefore, rail patronage across the state fell into decline. The railways were sold first to the federal government, then to private enterprise. However, the state Liberal government is continually researching what is best for South Australians to move ahead. We are not afraid of innovation and of taking up modern technology. So, we come to the Rail Transport Facilitation Fund Bill 2001.

During our term of office, freight movement across the state have increased significantly. Mining developments that we have supported are nearing the time when they will come on stream, with thousands of tonnes of product requiring to be transported. The growth in freight across Australia is forecast to increase at a rate greater than the gross domestic product. The Bureau of Transport Economics has forecast that, at the current growth rates, and in the absence of significant increases in the share of freight going by rail, tonnages moved by road would increase by 80 per cent by the year 2015. In South Australia, freight going by articulated road transport in the next 10 years is forecast to increase by 50 per cent from 12.1 to 18.12 billion net tonne kilometres. This is an exciting prospect. The Rail Transport Facilitation Fund Bill addresses the expectations raised through this forecast.

Moving freight by road and rail has never been integrated to any extent. Designing road trains and rail rolling stock so the trailers can be put onto bogeys without touching the freight is a move in the right direction. This is the type of planning that needs to be accelerated and expanded to benefit our state to appropriately cope with both distance and isolation. The advantages of each method of transport-that is, rail and road-need to be exploited for the best progress in the future. This state government has looked at issues as they affect the whole of the state and as they affect various departments. This integrated approach is reaping dividends for our state. We promote transport policy and planning across transport modes for economy, efficiency and protection of the environment. Inevitably, this links in with freight movement by sea. The government has done much in this area. Certainly, in my region, rail and road links with sea transport are well developed and integrated.

The Liberal state government is committed to promoting the greater use of rail by interstate and intrastate freight operators. The projected increase in freight tonnage requires planning now to ensure smooth handling in the future, and at the most economical cost. Such an increase, if handled only by road transport, would result in road congestion, a rise in road risks and a steep upward curve in road maintenance costs.

The Liberal government is proactive when it comes to the environment. From an environmental perspective, rail is able to transport three times the tonnage over certain routes for the same expenditure of energy as road. Facilitation of rail transport is, therefore, a positive move in reducing greenhouse gases. This fits well with the government's support for other measures to reduce greenhouse gases, such as the development of wind farms to generate electricity. A holistic approach to transport and freight movement provides the most favourable environmental outcomes for the state.

Competition is a word that we have all become familiar with in recent years. It is fair to say that competition across modes of transport has not been strong. Looking at rail and road as two facets of the same issue will provide a more competitive framework in South Australia's primary and secondary industries. We aim for the best service at the most economical rate. This will keep us competitive with our world trading partners. We are reminded time and again that we are now a global village. We must always be cognisant of this fact or we lose custom, therefore, lose income and go along the downward path to hardship and poverty.

The Adelaide-Darwin rail link opens a new era for South Australia, one in which we must anticipate the future and its opportunities. I find it quite exciting when I look at the possibilities that could come to Eyre Peninsula, particularly in tourism. Of course, the Eyre Peninsula rail system needs to be standardised and linked with the interstate system to gain the most benefit for our state and, in particular, Eyre Peninsula. I flag that this is a matter for future consideration, and one that I have already given considerable thought to.

No development occurs without money. The Rail Transport Facilitation Fund Bill brings into play a dedicated fund that will have a wide application to develop, upgrade and improve rail in this state. It is good business practice to ensure that money earned in one area is reinvested in that area to lift income. Income from the sale and/or lease of rail assets will find a ready home in this fund, as will income derived from rail facilitation projects. It has been truly stated that money breeds money. The proposed method of funding the bill provides an investment pool that will be conveniently accessible as projects eventuate. It will be added to with grant money from time to time to keep the pool operational. I particularly support the flexibility with which the fund is being set up, so that projects can be evaluated on their merits and the most appropriate form of support decided on. That may be a grant or a loan, capital investment, or the purchase of equipment or materials. I support the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that you welcome this bill to the House probably as much as, if not more than, any member. We have heard considerable contributions this afternoon, but I wish to refer to the contribution from the member for Spence, who talked about the historical context of where we find ourselves today, and the Solicitor-General's advice that we need a specific appropriation authority for the government to undertake rail facilitation projects.

I have recently read a rather interesting book (which I note is quite popular at the moment) called The Map that Changed the World , which chronicles the life and times of William Smith, who is recognised as the father of the science of geology. He made his discoveries whilst involved in the construction of canals throughout Great Britain in the late 1700s, and he talked about the statutes having to go through the parliament, and people having to travel to London to see the statutes go through parliament to allow for the construction of canals which crisscrossed Britain to ferry coal, in those days. Of course, those canals were superseded quite soon after that time by the railways, which drove all the canal companies broke. I guess the way in which we went about business here in Australia grew out of that, and I can understand the need for a special bill of the parliament-a special statute-to allow for the construction of a railway, because it is a very complex matter to build a railway: the land has to be appropriated, and rail obviously needs very slight grades, large radius curves and all those sorts of things. So, it is a much more complicated matter than building a road.

The other factor that leads us to where we are now (and which has been alluded to by several members) is that, in the mid 1970s, the then Dunstan government supposedly-and the member for Spence referred to it-made a good deal in selling the country rail network of South Australia to the then federal Labor government.

Mr Atkinson: It was making a huge loss.

Mr WILLIAMS: The member interjects that it was making a huge loss-as was the metropolitan rail service, which was never sold and which has continued to make a huge loss to this day. If my memory serves me well (and it was a long time ago), I think that the federal government paid the state government in the order of $100 million for our country rail network. The odd thing was that I think the commonwealth grants that came through to this state in the next year were reduced by a similar amount. So, South Australia virtually gave the rail network to the commonwealth. I would argue that the then Labor government of South Australia sold the network for one purpose: it did not have the guts to close it down as it wanted to, and gave it to the commonwealth so that the commonwealth would close it down.

We have seen the rail network across the state over the last 25 years, line after line, being closed and put out of use-the rail was ripped up and, in a lot of cases, the land was disposed of. This is most evident through the Mallee, where the only two rail lines that operate through the Mallee now are the Pinnaroo and the Loxton lines. Thank God we still have those, because the Mallee is a very productive area of the state, as we saw last season, in particular-and this season there will be a huge grain crop come out of the Mallee. Unfortunately, most of it will be delivered to Port Adelaide via the road network, and that is a crying shame. Not only will that extra freight on our road network put more pressure on our road network, but it will also put more pressure on those other people who, of necessity, have to use the road network. I am talking about the average motorist who, in my opinion- particularly those who venture out from the city from time to time on country roads-are ill-equipped to be sharing a carriageway with B-doubles.

In more recent times, at last we have had a standardisation program for the Australian rail system. There is no point in going over the historical context of how we ended up with many different gauges of rail across Australia. But at last we are seeing a standardisation of that system right across Australia. Unfortunately, for my electorate and the people in the South-East of the state-that most productive area of the state-the line that runs from Wolseley south through Naracoorte and Penola to Mount Gambier, traverses probably the richest and most productive agricultural part of the state.

Since 1995, when the Melbourne to Adelaide line was standardised, that line has been left in limbo. Being a broad gauge, obviously the rolling stock cannot readily transfer to the newly standardised line. It has been a bone of contention with all those in my electorate since that time. They lament that that line was not standardised at the time in the early to mid-1990s to allow freight trains to operate down as far as Mount Gambier.

The member for Schubert spoke highly of the action that the minister is taking on this matter. The minister needs to be commended. At every opportunity I get, I sing her praises in my electorate. More than any transport minister of this state, this minister is presiding over a time which hopefully will see the standardisation of that corridor through the South-East to Mount Gambier and see freight trains and passenger services potentially back on that route, bringing the freight from that area into Adelaide, the heart of South Australia, where further value adding can be done. A lot is being done now, but certainly marketing can be done, even on ships. In a few years, we will see the completion of the Adelaide to Darwin route, which will allow us to access that new port in Darwin which is so close to the major markets of Asia.

Several members have talked about the increase in the freight tasks which we are facing in the near future. I will just quantify that in terms which might mean more to some members. I refer to the effect of the freight tasks that road hauliers have in my electorate. When travelling from Tintinara to Tailem Bend some months ago on my way to Adelaide on a Monday evening ready for the Tuesday's sitting, out of sheer boredom I started counting the semitrailers coming towards me. In that drive of about one hour, I counted more than 120 semitrailers heading to Melbourne. I would hate to think how many semitrailers travel over that stretch of road from Adelaide to Melbourne every day of every week throughout the year.

I have felt and always argued that a lot of that freight should be back on the rail. Quite often I will pass up to three or four trains on the trip between Keith and Tailem Bend. I would like to see a lot more trains and a lot fewer trucks. I also have the situation in the township of Penola where the Riddoch Highway passes down the main street of that township which has rebuilt its economy in recent years around the tourism industry, obviously on the doorstep of the famous Coonawarra wine strip. It has recreated some historical walks around the town-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: And yes, the third miracle has happened in Penola in the last few years, with the building of the tourism industry there. But the locals complain that they get approximately 600 heavy truck movements through the main street of that town every day, and that does not tie in very well with the tourism trade which is being built and which the locals wish to increase.

Also, as the member for Schubert pointed out, the third Port River crossing is incredibly important. The minister in her second reading speech in another place highlighted both those projects-the standardisation of the South-East rail network and the third river crossing-and, as the member for Schubert stated, hopefully we will get a deep water port at Outer Harbor, a new grain terminal-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Exactly.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: You are confusing the issue. We are talking about setting up a rail fund so that we can have some moneys-

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I think that will be taken care of.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: It is most important to this state that both these projects get up. I commend the minister for setting up this fund so that the moneys that are returned through the sale of rail assets-and there are a number which are surplus to the requirements of the state-can be put in that fund. The fund will also be able to receive income derived from other sources. I hope that, over the next period, funds are built up so that both these projects may proceed. I reiterate the importance that I believe they have for the future of this state. I commend the bill.

Mr MEIER (Goyder): I will speak very briefly to this bill. I notice that Wallaroo is mentioned specifically in it. I was a little concerned that perhaps land was to be sold off or other track would be sold off, and I have been assured that no track will be sold off in the Wallaroo area. In fact, the government and the minister give full support to the Yorke Peninsula Rail Preservation Society in their magnificent railway from Wallaroo to Bute.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

Mr MEIER: It is interesting that the honourable member interjects, because apparently there is sufficient track available, of both standard and broad gauge, from Wallaroo to Snowtown, to relay the track to Moonta. The only thing that is missing are the sleepers, and I have made requests of several different departments, but so far none has been forthcoming gratis.

Mr Clarke: I know where 39 000 are gathering dust, but I will get to that later.

Mr MEIER: Thank you very much. I am happy to follow that one through. On this bill, the minister has assured me that certainly, if there is any land or anything to be sold off, the normal full consultation procedures will apply and the community and councils will have the chance to have their say. So I see no problem with this, and I trust that it will benefit rail more for the future.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN (Minister for Human Services): I would like to thank each of the members for their contribution to this debate. It is an issue which has created a lot of interest particularly in country areas where it has the impact. I raised the issue across the House with the shadow Attorney-General. I well recall the bill that was brought into the parliament. I well recall the election in 1975-

Mr Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: I had.

Mr Clarke interjecting:

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: There were, actually, yes, but it was a snap election. I am sure other members would recall that occasion. In fact, I recall going out and speaking at a meeting that night, coming back and finding that there was a lot of discussion around the place because suddenly an election had been called. I also recall the then Premier of the day thinking that he was going to win that election very easily, and winning it by a margin of 250 votes in the end.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: It was at that election that the Deputy Speaker (the member for Heysen) was elected to this parliament. I also recall going out and campaigning for the member for Heysen at that election. Coming back to the bill before the House, I thank members for their contribution. On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I will give a specific commitment to the House, especially to the member for Gordon. The member for Gordon has asked for certain undertakings from the minister and the minister is willing to give an undertaking concerning the following matter:

In briefing [the member for Gordon] on the above bill, [the member for Gordon] indicated that he would like assurance that local councils will be given notice and proper government procedures are followed if a parcel of land in its area is to be offered for sale or lease.

The minister has said she will give an assurance to the member for Gordon. Continuing:

. . . current government procedures for the sale of rail property require notice to be given to the relevant council (under Premier and Cabinet Circular 114) in case there is a specific interest in council acquiring that property. . .

The minister has indicated that this will continue to be the case. I continue quoting, as follows:

Where councils have agreed to develop rail property for community not commercial purposes-a number of parcels of surplus rail property across the state have already been transferred to councils at little or no cost.

In fact, I think I am right in saying that at Pinnaroo they have established a museum which has become quite a tourist attraction and which I opened, having first been involved with encouraging the community to establish that museum. The museum was established on railway land and has become, I think, the pride of Pinnaroo. It shows a fantastic amount of the history for the mallee. The member for Hammond, I know, is a keen supporter of the museum. There is a classic example where the local council has been heavily involved, together with the broader community, in terms of railway land. I am delighted to give that assurance on behalf of the minister that local councils in fact will be offered the land to see whether they have an interest in purchasing it; otherwise it will be put up for open sale. I urge all members of the House to now support the legislation through the committee stages.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr CLARKE: My electorate contains the Islington railway workshops which in its heyday, in the late 1960s, early 1970s, had something like 2 500 to 3 000 workers. Today, unfortunately, there would be barely 100 employees, if that, in that workshop. There are two areas I want to raise with the minister. I appreciate that the minister may need to go to the minister responsible for this legislation or the department to get the answers. He may wish to take it on notice.

In terms of the minister applying money towards rail facilitation projects, one of my constituents has been regularly in contact with me, the Premier, the state Minister for Transport, the federal Minister for Transport, the Prime Minister, and anyone else who will listen. He has come up with an invention with respect to the standardisation of our railway gauges. The company, JMB Engineering Services, has been formed to promote this invention involving a dual gauge carriageway.

Rather than the normal means by which rail gauges are standardised, where one of the railway lines is shifted so many inches to fit in with the standard gauge, this person and his company have developed a railway carriage wheel which has an additional flange on the normal wheel. Therefore, as the crane and its rolling stock go from one gauge to the next, it can simply adjust depending on which railway gauge it happens to be. He estimates it is of considerable saving in terms of the cost of standardisation of our railway lines in South Australia and, of course, there is export potential as well to other countries such as India which have adopted tactics similar to those that Australian colonies had a century, or more, ago of different size railway gauges. In fact, a model was put on display at Parliament House in the member for Schubert's office and a number of members of parliament took the time to look at it.

The difficulty is that all the letters and correspondence that my constituent has had from the Premier, the state Minister for Transport and her federal colleague state that it is a wonderful idea and they cannot understand why the private sector is not involved in it. In fact, in the words of the Premier, he was `amazed that the private sector did not want to pick up the idea'. Unfortunately, the private companies that now operate our freight lines, and so on, and our railway companies are not interested in it. I can guess why. Basically, when railway standardisation takes place the taxpayers pick up the cost. What is the incentive for them to promote or develop this particular invention? If it costs more to standardise the railway gauges, it does not matter to them. The costs are simply passed onto the taxpayer.

I would like the government to have a serious look at what is being proposed by my constituent. There are reams of correspondence in the various departmental files on this particular invention. Either the government could say, `Yes, we think it is a good idea and we will help you carry it through in terms of pilot studies and the like,'-because it is far too expensive for one individual or a partnership to do it-or, if the department thinks that it is a crazy idea but it is being polite to him, then put him out of his misery and tell him why so that he can get on with his life. He is perpetually left hanging between two stools, in part receiving encouragement from government agencies that he ought to look further at it but with no resources for him to effectively do so. So the government should either assist him or tell him that it does not think it will work; that it is a crazy idea or whatever and let him get back his life. I would like to know whether the minister, in particular the Minister for Transport, will in fact take on board my comments and see what can be done to assist this person.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: I acknowledge the point made by the member for Ross Smith. In fact, I have seen the concept and I think anyone who has seen it would say it is a very innovative step indeed. Whether or not it can be applied practically is not for me to say. I am not a railway specialist. However, I will refer the issue to the minister and ask whether she would provide a frank response for the member for Ross Smith so that he can get in touch with the inventor. Certainly, if there is any way of developing that and putting it into a practical application, I think that it would be ideal to do so, particularly to overcome the variation in gauges that still exists around the whole of Australia.

Mr CLARKE: I thank the minister for his comments and, in particular, for the fact that he took the time to look at that model put forward by my constituent. I look forward to the response from the Minister for Transport. The minister might also be interested to know that, about two or so years ago, the invention by my constituent on the model railway that he looked at won an inventor magazine's-I am not sure of the exact title now-national award. The invention obviously had some considerable substance but, like the minister, I have absolutely no practical knowledge of engineering so I do not know whether the idea is capable of coming to economic fruition.

I know that this bill does not cover metropolitan passenger rail services; so, even though my question is based around metropolitan passenger rail it still relates to this bill in terms of my fears that the same thing might happen in the non-metropolitan area with respect to this fund. About six weeks ago I had reason to look at the condition of the railway sleepers of the metropolitan passenger railway system between Woodville and Outer Harbor. I might say that the wooden sleepers that I had drawn to my attention by certain people were an absolute disgrace.

They were white-ant ridden. Whereas normally the ballast surrounding the railway line would have a nice drop and slope on the ground for levelling, I assume that it had all been demolished over a period of time and was in need of remedial work. I did not realise, or I had forgotten, that this bill was coming on today so I did not bring my notes with me, but at a dozen places at least along that particular line, Woodville to Outer Harbor, the speed limit, for safety reasons, has been reduced to about 25 km/h. I visited the TransAdelaide depot-at the extension of South Road, I think it is, Wingfield way-and I saw about 20 000 concrete sleepers sitting there gathering dust.

I understand that about another 18 000 were on order at a price of approximately $100 a sleeper. They were scheduled to be used to complete the resleeping, if I could term it that way (it is probably not the technical term), of the Woodville to Outer Harbor passenger railway line. However, I understand that the budget for that had been reduced. That work was scheduled to take place this year but they are now going to repair only half the line. The capital replacement costs in the budget have been cut in half. We have something like 19 000 to 20 000 sleepers at $100 each just sitting at the depot gathering dust when they ought to have been applied to upgrade the passenger railway track.

My concern is not so much the passage of the bill-and I know that a number of members have already spoken about how this will be used to upgrade railway lines, standardisation of the gauges, etc.-but that the work will not happen. As always it will ultimately depend on the government of the day to decide whether or not certain budgets will be met. Would the minister pursue with the Minister for Transport this issue of only half doing a job along the Outer Harbor to Woodville passenger rail line in terms of resleeping, if that is the term, otherwise something like $2 million of capital has already been spent on concrete railway sleepers, which are just gathering dust and, no doubt, taxpayers are paying interest on them.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: To be frank, I fail to see the connection between what the member for Ross Smith has raised and this bill, but I will refer that matter to the minister and I am sure that, with her usual enthusiasm (if it happens to be a TransAdelaide issue), she will take up the issue. TransAdelaide has a reballasting program, but I will get the minister to respond directly to the member for Ross Smith. I continue to support this bill and urge members to continue to support it.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 and title passed.

Bill read a third time and passed.