Additional Comments – Australian Democrats
Introduction
In
principle, Australia's transport
systems should be accessible, safe, integrated and efficient. They should
contribute less to our greenhouse gas emissions, utilise less fossil fuels and
generate significantly less air pollution now and in the future.
The impact of transport
on our environment is substantial, accounting for 14% of national greenhouse
gas emissions in 2001 – an increase of 25% over 1990 and this figure continues
to rise. The freight load is forecast to double by 2020.
Urban planning and
transport funding has favoured road over rail and private cars over public
transport, walking and cycling. Australia has one of the lowest rates of utilisation of
public transport in the OECD. Excise on fossil fuels has reduced in real terms
and there are almost no incentives to shift transport to cleaner alternative
and renewable fuels or to more energy efficient vehicles.
AusLink was an
opportunity to address these transport issues and while the Australian Democrats support the commitment of extra
funding to construction and maintenance of Australian transport infrastructure,
we are disappointed that this is not the promised
comprehensive, strategic, long-term plan of Australia's transport infrastructure needs.
According to the
Government:
"AusLink will revolutionise the planning and funding of
Australia's national roads
and railways by taking a long-term, strategic approach to our long-term future.
It represents the most significant change since Federation in the way we tackle
the national transport task.."[113]
These are well-meaning
words, but they are empty and fundamentally misleading. Firstly, the program is not comprehensive,
focussed exclusively as it is on major roads and railways. Urban congestion is
dealt with only insofar as it concerns barriers to freight movement and public
transport services are entirely missing.
It also fails to address the long-term problems inherent in continuing
to rely on national highways as the primary mode of regional freight transport,
ignoring the economic and environmental advantages of shifting freight to rail.
The program has been
funded for five years (with most of the money already allocated), with plans to
continue AusLink in future five-year packages.
Aside from the empty rhetorical flourishes about 'transforming' Australia's transport infrastructure, there are no
clearly defined aims and verifiable objectives of the AusLink program that is
said to inform its development and priorities in years to come. It is impossible to take a long-term,
strategic approach without a comprehensive national transport infrastructure
plan. Rather, this is a patch-up of existing road and rail systems. By concentrating solely on regional freight
networks, ignoring whole areas of infrastructure need such as urban public
transport, and by failing to articulate a clear vision for what AusLink is to
achieve in the long-term, the Government has failed in its objective before it
has even begun.
In respect of this Inquiry into the
AusLink bills, we support the general conclusions of the main Committee
Report, but believe that they do not go far enough.
Funding Infrastructure – Getting the Balance Right
Across all levels of
Government in Australia, roads receive the bulk of all transport
infrastructure funding, many times more than the amounts allocated to
rail. Funding for infrastructure for
bikeways and pedestrian safety, amenity and access remains minuscule. AusLink,
which pools road and rail infrastructure funding remains heavily weighted to
road transport - $10.9 billion for roads and $1.8 billion for rail - and
focused entirely on freight.
The Australian Democrats believe that
this balance needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The fact that AusLink focuses almost
exclusively on regional freight transport means that critical issues such as
urban passenger transport and public transport to alleviate congestion are
essentially ignored.
Further, the balance of
funding priorities within the AusLink pool needs to be shifted, to reflect that
the environmental impact of transporting freight can be reduced if the focus
shifts from road to rail. Currently 85% of freight on the eastern seaboard is
transported via our road networks. One Melbourne-Sydney freight train replaces
150 semi-trailers and rail uses only one third of the fuel per tonne hauled.
Unfortunately lack of investment in modern infrastructure has made it hard for
rail to be cost competitive as access charges for rail are 30% of operating
costs compared with 5% for road. We believe that there should be a
rail-specific fund for modernising rail infrastructure, with an emphasis on the
east coast route, multimodal exchanges, rail links into ports and nationally
consistent regulations, codes and communication systems.
The Democrats support
road and rail user charges but note that there is no intention that these will
reflect the full externalities, such as air, noise and water pollution,
greenhouse emissions, habitat destruction and traffic congestion.
Making AusLink Transparent, Accountable and Strategic
The Australian Democrats are seriously
concerned about the extremely broad discretion that has been granted to the
Minister in terms of determining funding allocations through the AusLink
program. Without wishing to cast any
doubts about the sincerity and professionalism of Transport Ministers in
general, a system of broad and unfettered Ministerial discretion is inherently
problematic in that it may raise suspicions about the integrity of the program
and the principle of merit-based funding allocations. We believe that the scheme must be run
according to clearly established and well-publicised criteria, and the funding
decisions must be transparent and accountable.
It is a fundamental point that decisions
on the 'worth' of projects should be made according to a triple-bottom-line
assessment - that is, not merely on economic criteria. While the economic cost-benefit analysis of
any particular project is obviously very important, the established criteria for
selection of projects for funding must also take into account the social and
environmental impacts of the proposal.
Decisions about transport infrastructure funding by their very nature
have a major impact on communities, and on our natural environment, and a
bottom line that only recognises the monetary aspects will fail to take these
essential considerations into account.
We support the proposed concept of a
National Transport Advisory Council to assess the merit of projects and make
recommendations to the Minister according to the established criteria. Members of this Council must be appointed on
merit through a transparent process, and should be chosen to represent the
broad basis of interests in the transport sector – including freight, passenger
and environmental group representatives.
The Australian Democrats also believe
that the recommendations of the Advisory Council should be made according to a
comprehensive, long term national transport infrastructure plan - so that
decisions are made strategically and not on an ad-hoc basis. This plan should be developed with extensive
consultation, effective modelling, creative alternative transport solutions and
an emphasis on environmental, social and economic sustainability. We must take a long term and holistic view of
Australia's transport infrastructure needs to ensure that these needs
are met both now and into the future.
Lyn Allison
Senator for Victoria
Leader of the Australian Democrats
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page