Supplementary Submissions on behalf of Ivory’s Rock Foundation to Senate Standing Committee regarding Management of the Inland Rail Project (Calvert to Kagaru section) 7 May 2021 File no. 20190271 Ivory's Rock ‘A unique land use’ Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation NeuTurn Pty Ltd trading as Neumann & Turnour Lawyers ACN 645 361 619 ABN 87 645 361 619 | www.ntlawyers.com.au A member of the Southern Cross Legal Alliance with associated legal firms in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Auckland and Christchurch TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Submissions ............................................................................................................................. 4 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Issues Arising from the C2K DEIS ................................................................................... 6 Impact on Ivory’s Rock ......................................................................................................... 7 Noise Impact ...................................................................................................................... 8 Koalas .............................................................................................................................. 10 Other Flora and Fauna .................................................................................................... 11 Natural Environment and Landscape ............................................................................ 11 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 11 Impacts on the Peak Crossing Community....................................................................... 12 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 12 Visual Amenity and Tourism .......................................................................................... 13 Failure to Appreciate the True Impact of the Rail ......................................................... 13 Community Benefits ....................................................................................................... 14 Community Engagement ................................................................................................ 15 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix 1: IRF Supplementary Submission regarding ARTC Engagement with Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................ 17 Page 2 of 17 Doc: Introduction 1. Ivory’s Rock Foundation (‘IRF’) welcomes the opportunity to make a further submission to the Senate Inquiry with regard to the impact of the Calvert to Kagaru section (‘C2K’) of the Inland Rail including: a. Direct impacts on the Ivory’s Rock Convention and Events Centre (‘IRCE’); b. Impacts on the local Calvert to Kagaru community and natural environment; and c. The South-East Queensland (‘SEQ’) proposed route in general. 2. The recent release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (‘DEIS’) for C2K has further substantiated how inappropriate the C2K corridor is for SEQ, for the impacted communities, and the natural environment. 3. Along with communities and landholders throughout the Queensland proposed alignment, IRF recommends a complete review of the Inland Rail route in Queensland. This is justified by the clear inadequacies of the C2K DEIS and its clearly stated impacts. Some of the major issues highlighted by the DEIS are set out in this submission. 4. The escalating costs of the Inland Rail show that the Business Case for the Inland Rail is failing. Australian Rail Track Corporation (‘ARTC’) CEO Richard Wankmuller, on record to the Senate Estimates in 2020, admitted that the final cost could reach $20 billion. However, this estimate does not include the costs of very significant externalities such as the connection from Acacia Ridge to Port of Brisbane. The overall true cost will be much higher. It is also now not clear if this $20 billion projection includes the construction cost of the Gowrie to Kagaru Public Private Partnership (‘PPP’) section. 5. The ARTC has still not resolved on a route from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. We submit that the Senate Committee should not recommend that the Inland Rail Project proceed until the final route and the true costs of the project are known. 6. In light of these pervasive issues, IRF submits that the Senate Committee cannot be satisfied with the Inland Rail Project: a. Until there is certainty on the route. The beginning and end of the route have still not been resolved. This also makes accepting the current route to Brisbane (including C2K) as wholly premature. Further scoping, consultation, and impact assessments must be undertaken; b. Until the costs of the Project are known. The beginning and end of the route have not been resolved, and cannot be properly costed. Until the route is decided and the impact accurately assessed, the true cost cannot be known. Additionally, Page 3 of 17 Doc: many of the key cost drivers of the project are being deferred to the ‘design phase’, which may well lead to further possibly very substantial cost escalations; c. While the ARTC fails to commit to mitigating the impacts of the rail on local communities, property holders, and the environment (as currently being demonstrated by the now released DEIS documents for sections from Border to Kagaru) because, in addition to social and environmental impacts, these mitigations when accommodated, will add further to the costs; d. Until the ARTC has consulted (as distinct from shared information).. On the evidence provided by IRF and submitted to the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General it seems clear that ARTC has not engaged in consultation as it is required to do. IRF put these allegations to the ARTC for a response. ARTC chose not to respond. 7. This submission focuses on the issues identified in the C2K DEIS as the other issues have been adequately canvassed elsewhere. Submissions 8. Along with the many other submitters at the recent Senate Hearing, we submit that the only practical way forward, given the situation as it has emerged is for a complete review of the route of the Inland Rail in Queensland and to recommend a halt to the release of Queensland Draft Environmental Impact Statements until the review is completed. We accordingly request that the Senate Committee support a complete review of the Inland Rail Project so far as it relates to Queensland. 9. The current proposed route from Gowrie to Acacia Ridge, and specifically from Calvert to Kagaru and from Kagaru to Acacia Ridge, has such serious issues that it should not proceed. Failing a review of the entire Queensland route, IRF proposes that a review be undertaken of the route from Gowrie to Acacia Ridge. This should include a review of how the PPP nature of the section may be leaving local communities worse off. IRF recommends that the Senate Committee support a review of the Gowrie to Acacia Ridge route. 10. IRF understands that the Senate Committee has received several proposals for the following alternative viable routes/solutions to the current proposed Border to Acacia Ridge route: a. Terminate the Inland Rail for SEQ in Toowoomba with a trucking hub at Toowoomba for SEQ freight, Page 4 of 17 Doc: b. Not terminate the Inland Rail in Toowoomba but continue the Inland Rail to Gladstone for export goods;1 c. Not terminate the Inland Rail in Toowoomba but continue the Inland Rail to west of Ipswich (possibly Ebenezer) and establish a trucking hub for SEQ at that point, possibly combined with the Gladstone option for export goods; or d. If termination in Ebenezer was agreed, to consider a route (including underground tunnels) direct from Ebenezer to the Port of Brisbane. 11. If the Inland Rail must continue into SEQ then one of the original routes considered in the early Inland Rail planning days should be revisited. The route from Inglewood-Warwick- directly to Tamrookum-Bromelton (not via Toowoomba) should be reviewed as an alternative to the proposed C2K route.2 It is IRF’s understanding that it was rejected in the early stages partly because of costs, estimated at $450 million more expensive than the route via Toowoomba.3 However no review of this cost has been done since 2010 during which time the cost of the current route has increased substantially. 12. In summary, it is submitted that the Queensland section of the Inland Rail, particularly the C2K section must be reviewed and cannot be progressed. Now is the time to properly reassess alternatives and undertake fulsome genuine consultation on route options, costs, impact and mitigation requirements. Overview 13. The DEIS for the C2K section of the Inland Rail was released on 19 December 2020 with closing date for submissions of Monday 8 March 2021. This was a very short timeframe given the 7,000 page scope of the DEIS for this section. 14. IRF made a comprehensive submission with regard to impacts on IRCE (owned by IRF) and wider impacts on the wider community and the