12/10/2019

Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

To the Committee Secretary,

Re: The Management of the Inland Rail project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and The Commonwealth Government

I am the President of the Inner Downs Inland Rail Action Group. Our group represents property owners located on the Inner Downs. Our goal is to bring about awareness of Inland Rail and to have the Inland Rail re-routed to a line that has less impact on community, prime farming land and the environment. I. Financial arrangements of the project

The costing for the Inland Rail project is flawed because it has been calculated utilising outdated data, former route selection and construction design. The false business plan is flawed with financial inaccuracies including freight types and charges, not to mention 24 hour service agreement.

Treating this project as an equity injection is not sustainable. The contingency percent was not included in the total costing for the project.

There will be serious cost blowouts in most sections of the project which is reinforced by Ernest and Young stating that the Inland Rail Project would cost $16 000 000 000.

The design and engineering of the Inland Rail project has been modified due to the complexity of the terrain. Most citizens would consider costing to then be revised, unlike ARTC. The organizations’ employees have reported on numerous occasions that it still is within budget parameters. It is not surprising that landowners are skeptical of the response. The viaduct structures with an increase from 1.04km to 6km (with only a 25% increase in cost) is one example.

Many design and engineering issues have arisen in the Wellcamp area with increased viaducts and road crossings. The infrastructure increases have been tenfold but there hasn’t been an anticipated expenditure increase. Again the budget for this work is grossly disproportionate.

The Auditor-General has criticised the Australian Rail Track Corporation for shortcomings in providing value for money in procurement activities. (report attached) It had a higher than average amount of sole sourcing. Again this illustrates inexperience on behalf of ARTC in managing large projects and is a warning sign that the smaller local operators will be at a distinct disadvantage in the construction phase of the project.

Public Private Partnership (PPP) parameters have not been made available. This agreement needs to be made public so a true cost of the project can be ascertained. The discrepancies between the business case and the actual costings and benefits for the project require reevaluation. The project requires PPP to complete the highly complex Great Divide tunneling and ARTC considers themselves as a partner. The terms of this partnership seem dubious, therefore, it is unlikely that any skilful company will provide funding. Obviously it will fall upon the government to provide the shortfall as a continued equity injection.

FOI documents or the lack there of, demonstrates that the LNP government is not concerned about the cost overruns of this project and have agreed to allow this Nationals boondoggle to continue at any cost.

Compensation figures for the have more than a 75% shortfall. (MCA report attached) The original compensation figures have not been updated since the Base Case investigations. Properties in the greenfield area from Pittsworth to Gowrie are very close to and are lifestyle blocks which bring a premium unlike the larger acreage properties further west in the Darling Downs. A factor not considered in the eleventh hour route change past the Wellcamp airport.

The solution to these huge cost overruns on the B2G portion of the project could be easily solved by using the proposed forestry route that was supported by Lawrence Springborg . The Government had spent many years of investigation, design work and millions of dollars. It utilises existing rail and reduces greenfield substantially and has far less impact on communities and the environment. Putting it simply, it is flat, straight, fast and utilises State owned land.

II. Route Planning and Selection Processes:

The route planning process was totally inadequate and submissions were not extended to general community groups, local businesses nor locals. The selection process did not follow prescribed government process and was allowed to be biased by some influential parties.

It is perceived by the community that the decision process around the final corridors was biased. Freedom of Information “FOI” records show records of this interference.

The government was misleading the community proposing that all options were still being considered.

The government had spent many years on planning and investigation on the original alignment. “Base Case” with the release of two reports ie. 2015 and 2010 The Multi Criteria Assessment “MCA” showed that this route was cheaper, had less impact on community and the environment. (attached)

The Project Reference Group “PRG” chaired by Bruce Wilson suggested further investigation of the Forestry Route but they were ignored. This was raised numerous times by the community and the response was that it was investigated. Again FOI documents tell a different story and a completely different area was investigated.

In the PRG report (attached) it states that “shallow cuts are preferable” in contrast to the current design being delivered by ARTC. Cuttings the size of caverns will be constructed. Some of these cuttings will be larger than the ones on the Toowoomba bypass. This preferred alignment via the Wellcamp airport will definitely have a detramental impact on ground water supplies. This clearly shows that ARTC are only concerned about delivering a project not the detrimental effects it will have on the environment and the negative impacts on all the small businesses that support and keep these regional communities afloat because without water agriculture can’t exist.

The current prefferred corridor in the B2G section has some of the highest elevations in the entire toure. This would increase the carbon dioxide emission and diesel useage for locomotives climbing these steep ascents.

The information in the Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) was heavily weighted towards technical viability whereas Environmental and Social impacts were given the lowest rating. It is obvious with the MCA weighting that communities are seen as mere collateral damage for the project.

ARTC’s response to the Goondiwindi Regional Council and members of the Project Reference Group as to why it would not consider their proposal was because of the extra costs of earthworks. However, the MCA shows that the preferred route has substantially more required earth works. Furthermore, it was not the most cost effective solution in construction and operations.

ARTC are using the same engineering company as the Toowoomba Bypass. Of grave concern were the serious ecological issues culminating in additional time and cost of the project. This may well occur again with the inland rail project. Inland rail will be traversing the same geological areas but with greater impact and engineering needs to meet the heavy loads of trains.

The value of these properties has been severely impacted. Many of the landholders in the area have planned their retirement around their farming assets. The impact of the preferred corridor has drastically reduced property values; therefore, many will have to rely on alternate means of support e.g. aged pensions. This will in turn have an impact on the Australian Government with self-funded retirees having to rely on financial support from the Government.

The exceptionally high elevations of the preferred corridor will impact negatively not only on overall operational profitability but greenhouse gas emissions. Diesel use and carbon dioxide emissions will be much greater for this route as it has elevations exceeding 612m, the highest elevations of the entire Melbourne to project.

The forestry route crosses 39 roads whereas the preferred corridor crosses an additional 81 roads, totalling 120. Furthermore, the impact on community safety will be jeopardized given that statistics show that 76% of rail crossing accidents occur at level crossings.

Solution:

A route selection that does not ascend to the highest elevation of the entire project would make sense. This would also assist in the reduction of running costs.

III. Connections with other freight infrastructure, including ports and intermodal hubs

Placement of the inland rail at the end of the Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport poses many challenges including the height of the structure and road and creek crossings. Data reveals that wind flow through the valley has been recorded above 100km per hour. A very concerning fact for double stacked trains, especially if unloaded. Moreover, there won’t be an access road to pick up the pieces when they blow over given that it is over a flood plain.

The synergies between rail and air freighting are not strong enough to justify diverting the rail terminal to Wellcamp. Relatively speaking, the inland rail freight will tend to be high volume, low value while the air freight out of Wellcamp is more likely to be low volume, high value; any exceptions could be easily accommodated by road linkages. Secondly, Charlton has been the recognised destination for some years (since the ARTC 2010 report) and substantial investment decisions have already been made on the back of associated expectations. The development of a second rail freight hub 7km from the already approved hub under construction could not benefit Toowoomba.

The project or partial project does not deliver a track to the Port of Brisbane that can cater for double- stacked trains.

The Government has signed the Intergovernmental Agreement which will result in a realm of complications and difficulties in the future. Upgrading the existing corridor for double stacked trains through dense, inner‐city residential communities, will be technically difficult to construct and socially unacceptable. Large numbers of properties will need to be resumed and numerous major arterial road structures will need to be completely rebuilt, causing huge logistical challenges.

IV. Engagement on route alignment, procurement and employment

The community consultation process was poorly delivered. The first many of our members new about the inland rail was when they were notified by neighbours.

An example of the lack of consultation is the closure of Athol School Road, Athol. ARTC said that they had consulted with affected members of the community and CCC members. I am a member of both and the first I knew about the pending closure of the road was on an ARTC presentation showing road closures.

There standard response is “Comment Response

Thank you for your comment. From September 2018 to September 2019, Inland Rail gathered feedback from key stakeholders, landowners and the community regarding how public roads are used in the community. We encouraged people to provide feedback via letters, phone calls, meetings, workshops, community information sessions, CCC meetings, e-newsletters and a flyer. Any proposed changes to local roads are subject to ongoing discussions with the Department of Transport and Main Roads and councils. If you would like to provide feedback on the proposed road designs for our consideration, please add a comment to the map or send your comments to [email protected] or contact us on 1800 732 761.”

Athol School Road is a major thoroughfare between the Gore and Toowoomba Cecil Plains Road. It is used by local residents and the wider community especially during special events including the annual CRT FarmFest.

A suggestion would be to make this a level crossing as opposed to a road closure.

ARTC is proposing road closure affecting resident’s access to their properties, further impacting property dissection and resumptions.

Another major concern for the Inner Downs community is the dissection of relatively small properties (most of which are less than 400 acres)leaving them unviable.

Another example of the poor consultation was when a room of over 120 residents at the Southbrook hall meeting were asked if they were provided any information around the Inland Rail Project. Over 2/3 of the room raised their hands.

V. Urban and regional economic development opportunities

The project is spruiking great economic benefits for the Darling Downs and Queensland, however, the dollar value is unsubstantiated. The fact is, after the construction phase, the benefits to the Darling Downs will be minimal. The agricultural industry will continue to utilise road transport as it would not be economically viable for them to use rail as it is within a 200km radius of their delivery destination.

VI. Collaboration between governments

Another concern is the discrepancy between government authorities. Below is an example of conflicting information. Minister Bailey has expressed that coal won’t travel though the suburbs of Brisbane, however, the main report and business case clearly states that coal plays an important role in making this project viable. The public are being misinformed.

A solution to this issue would be to make the project ‘truly’ Inland Rail and navigate to Gladstone. Thereby routing through Central Queensland and collecting produce and commodities en-route. To this end it would provide economic benefits to the state of Queensland and not solely to the southern counterparts. This would make sense to further investigate as the Government has already spent millions on a feasibility study.

VII. Any other related matters

Water is another factor that needs great consideration in the construction phase of the project. ARTC are aware that ground water is fully allocated and dam levels at present are at critical levels if not empty. This poses a great risk to the project and landholders in the area. Most landholders in the area do not have any water to spare. Thus sourcing water for the project will be difficult.

It defies belief that a Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) would satisfy the needs of the community members. The cumulative effects for residents from Southbrook to Gowrie from recent projects including the Toowoomba Bypass Second Range Crossing and the Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport have been extraordinary. Now they are faced with the construction of Inland Rail.

A third major ongoing project would exacerbate community members’ anxiety and pose a substantial risk to mental health for those in the area.

In every state in Australia, the rate of suicide among those who live outside the greater capital cities is higher than that for residents that live within them, and the rate has risen much higher in rural areas over the period 2011-2015. (Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, 2017)

ARTC carried out a community survey despite the Community Consultative Committee members suggesting it would be best postponed until further details of the project were released to the community. This suggestion was ignored and the survey was delivered. Community members could not answer questions in an informed manner as they had little information provided about the project. ARTC’s ability to deliver a project of this size is questionable. They have not had the experience of delivering a project of this size before. It is negligent of the Government to award the project without going to market with a clear scope with defined deliverables and costings.

We all look forward to positive outcomes from this inquiry.

Yours Faithfully,

Larry Pappin