Chapter 3
Infrastructure and Transport portfolio
Department of Infrastructure and Transport
3.1
This chapter contains the key issues discussed during the 2010-11 additional
estimates hearings for the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio. A complete
list of all the topics discussed, and relevant page numbers, can be found at
appendix 4.
3.2
The committee heard evidence from the department on Tuesday 22 February
2011. The hearing was conducted in the following order:
- Corporate Services
- Major Cities Unit
- Infrastructure Australia
- Nation Building—Infrastructure Investment
- Surface Transport Policy
- Australian Maritime Safety Authority
- Policy and Research (incorporating the Bureau of Infrastructure,
Transport and Regional Economics)
- Office of Transport Security
- Aviation and Airports
- Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Airservices Australia
- Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Corporate Services
3.3
The committee confirmed the appointment of the Commonwealth Coordinator-General,
Ms Lyn O’Connell, and sought details about the work and responsibilities of the
role. Ms O'Connell explained that:
My role is one
of coordinating and dealing with both the state and federal government agencies
responsible for delivery of the programs, reporting on the delivery of the
programs et cetera, and resolving any issues.[1]
3.4
The committee discussed the progress of projects under the Economic
Stimulus Plan and expressed concerns about the prospects of completion by the delivery
date on 30 June 2011. Officers advised that there is an ongoing and active
monitoring of the program, with currently 97 per cent of major projects
commenced and over 73 per cent completed.[2]
3.5
The department also provided an update on the progress of implementing
the 2010 election commitment projects, including the Epping to Parramatta rail
link and the Port of Townsville project.[3]
Major Cities Unit
3.6
The committee sought clarification of the staffing, role and work plan
of the Major Cities Unit following its integration into the department. Officers
informed the committee that:
Our work falls
into a number of streams, the most significant of which is the development of a
national urban policy that we are currently out for consultation on. We also
have the minister’s agreement to continue to produce the State of Australian
cities report, the first report of which was released in March last year.
We also provide advice, through the department and also through Infrastructure
Australia, on infrastructure proposals and their merits in terms of cities.[4]
3.7
The committee expressed interest in the State of Australian cities
report and whether governments have introduced programs or policies stemming
from the report. The department indicated that it was not aware of any such
programs or policies, but explained the intended purpose of the report:
The State of
Australian cities report, I believe for the first time, draws together a
broad range of statistics and analysis in regards to the Australian city state
as an information document. As Ms Ekelund has indicated, it was a base document
that we have used to draft the national urban policy document that was released
in December of last year as part of an ongoing conversation with the community
in terms of the government establishing a national urban policy.[5]
3.8
The committee went on to discuss the National Urban Policy and heard
from the department that completion of the policy framework is a priority for
the Major Cities Unit in the coming months. Officers advised that the
policy will be issued by the government in 2011.[6]
Infrastructure Australia and Nation Building—Infrastructure Investment
3.9
The committee took evidence about the National Land Freight Strategy
discussion paper released on 22 February 2011 and the consideration of climate
change issues in the department’s work. The department stated that:
...in
our current work we are looking at some 80 to 100 major infrastructure
projects, and part of the assessment of those projects is to deal with the
potential impact of climate change in each of them. We have considered, as part
of the National Ports Strategy that the Commonwealth has taken forward, the
impacts of climate change. The National Land Freight Strategy discussion paper
released today by Minister Albanese is designed to consider some of the impacts
of climate change in terms of road versus rail and the pricing arrangements
that might go to those things, and it is also present in our work on both urban
and regional water strategies, both of which are out in the public domain.[7]
3.10
There was some discussion about the work of Infrastructure Australia
following recent natural disasters. The department was questioned about
deferrals to Queensland infrastructure projects to fund flood recovery, as well
as assistance provided to Queensland and Victoria in restoration projects.[8]
3.11
The committee enquired about the high-speed rail study announced in
October 2010 and heard that a formal reference group has been established.[9]
3.12
In addition, the department provided the committee with updates on
various infrastructure projects in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and
Western Australia.[10]
3.13
The committee sought information about the Commonwealth government
commitment to build new truck stops over 2010-11 and 2011-12. Officers
explained the process for identifying priority truck stop areas:
...submissions are received
from state and territory governments identifying priorities for funding, and
are also received from interest groups, such as the Australian Livestock
Transporters Association, Australian Logistics Council, Australian Trucking Association,
Linfox, NatRoad Ltd, National Transport Commission, Queensland Transport
Association and Toll Group. So the minister receives submissions, and approval
of funding is based on the submissions and adequate project documentation and
state’s agreement to the terms of the funding and reporting requirements.[11]
3.14
Further questions were asked relating to the black spot funding program
and applications from regional authorities. The department explained the process
for assessing applications:
In regard to the criteria that relate to
it, it has to have a history of at least three casualty crashes over a
five-year period at that particular point for it to be eligible for the black
spot program. It needs to be able to demonstrate a benefit-to-cost ratio of at
least two to one. There are some sites which are eligible for consideration as
a result of a road safety audit. Road safety audits do not require a crash
history or a casualty crash history, but only 30 per cent of the program can be
allocated on the basis of a road safety audit, as opposed to one which has a
crash history.
When those are nominated, there is a
desktop review, if you like, conducted by the particular road safety
authority—so, in the case of New South Wales, it is the RTA—and all of those
submissions are brought to the state or territory consultative panel...They
then go through a process of looking at the allocation of funding for that
year. They will then produce a list of black spot projects—or potential black
spot projects, really—which is then put to the minister for approval.[12]
Surface Transport Policy
3.15
The committee requested an update on the national heavy vehicle reforms
and was advised that progress is underway with a view to enact a single
national heavy vehicle regulator in January 2013.[13]
The department indicated that it is working to achieve agreement and uniformity
across the Australian jurisdictions, with currently about five remaining areas
of divergence in the various regulatory models.[14]
3.16
The committee expressed significant concern that the Regulation Impact
Statement (RIS) to examine the case for adopting an international standard on
pedestrian safety may include the banning of bull bars on Australian vehicles.[15]
Officers emphasised through extensive discussions that such a ban was not envisaged:
The proposal in
the RIS is emphatically not to ban bull bars. What the proposal actually does
is propose standards to improve the pedestrian safety of vehicles by increasing
the energy absorbency of the front of the vehicles.[16]
3.17
It was further clarified that under the RIS proposal, standards are to
be phased in from 2013 to 2019 and will only apply to new vehicles. Moreover,
the department noted that the proposal as a whole is currently still open for
public comment.
3.18
The committee also engaged in discussion about the draft National Road
Safety Strategy and the target reduction rate for road fatalities over the next
decade.[17]
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
3.19
The committee discussed recent incidents involving maritime transport
vessels and sought clarification on the jurisdiction of AMSA over port
activities. Officers explained that:
...the
jurisdiction under the Navigation Act that we work is currently a voyage based
jurisdiction. So, for example, we have jurisdiction over a foreign flagged
vessel coming into that port from an international voyage. Should there be, for
example, an incident in that port between a foreign flagged vessel and a vessel
such as the tug under state jurisdiction, again we would have jurisdiction over
the seaworthiness of the foreign flagged vessel, but it is generally the state
authorities who have actual waterways management control within that port.[18]
3.20
The committee also sought specific information about the Shen Neng
1 incident in the Great Barrier Reef and the Pacific Adventurer oil
spill in Moreton Bay.[19]
Policy and Research (incorporating the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport
and Regional Economics)
3.21
The committee enquired about research into regional issues following the
establishment of the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and
Local Government. Officers advised that regional research staff are still
employed in the department to provide research to the new department.[20]
The department also indicated that it is involved in discussions with the
Australian Bureau of Statistics to standardise a definition of 'regional
Australia'.[21]
3.22
The department provided the committee with road death statistics for
recent years and explained the analysis of a decrease in fatality rate:
So from the
data itself I guess we look at the breakdown of what is happening and there has
been a decline over time, very positively, in the number of people in the 17 to
25 year age group. The number of fatalities in that group has declined over the
last five years. In fact, across the whole range of different categories there
has been a decline. The only real exception is people riding motorcycles and
that is in part due to the fact that more people are riding motorcycles. We
have also just published an analysis of the major things over the last 40-odd
years that have had an impact on road fatalities. We have got quite a good
analysis that shows cause and effect. The three biggest things that have made a
difference over the last 40 years are the introduction of seatbelts, random breath
testing and speed cameras.[22]
3.23
The department advised that further research is being undertaken to
improve measures as part of the National Road Safety Strategy.[23]
Office of Transport Security
3.24
Regarding the introduction of body scanner technology at airports, the
committee noted concerns from the community on privacy issues and potential
health impacts of exposure to the X-ray technology. Officers explained that, at
this stage, the department is engaging with the Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) to analyse the types of body scanner
technology available with consideration of potential health effects. If the
X-ray technology is considered further, the Radiation Health Committee will be
required to make recommendations for its approval or otherwise.[24]
3.25
The department is also working with the manufacturers to develop the
technology so that images of passengers are reduced to simplified graphic representations
with an automatic threat detection capability to highlight areas on the body of
potential safety concern.[25]
Aviation and Airports
3.26
The committee questioned officers regarding the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Airport monitoring report 2009-10. Specific
issues discussed included monopoly pricing at Sydney airport and the allocation
of landing slots for regional airlines under the Sydney Slot Management Scheme.
Officers advised that the ACCC report will be considered as part of the
Productivity Commission inquiry on the economic regulation of airport
services which is currently in the process of inviting submissions.[26]
3.27
The committee also enquired about the regional airline subsidy scheme
for en route navigation charges. Officers confirmed that the scheme will
be phased out after 30 June 2012 but will continue for air ambulance operators.[27]
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
3.28
The committee's questioning of CASA, Airservices Australia and ATSB included
a number of matters currently before the Rural Affairs and Transport References
committee in its inquiry into Pilot Training and Aircraft Safety. The committee
agreed to pursue these matters in greater detail at its public hearing in Canberra
on 25 February 2011. Other issues considered by the committee are outlined
below.
3.29
The committee followed up an issue from the previous supplementary estimates
hearing regarding a potential conflict of interest in the approval of safety
devices where approval authority has been delegated to a self-administering
organisation. CASA assured the committee that in this particular case of
delegated authority to the Australian Parachute Federation, the approval decision
is made by a technical advisory group rather than an individual officer.[28]
3.30
CASA was questioned about the performance based navigation system trial at
Brisbane airport, including aircraft operations during the Queensland floods. Officers
explained that measures were put in place in some Queensland airports to enable
emergency service operations, although no special provision was required for
Brisbane as it is already within controlled airspace.[29]
The committee also engaged in discussion about the transition towards new aircraft
equipment such as the ADS‑B surveillance technology.[30]
3.31
The committee revisited the evidence of Mr John McCormack, Director of
Aviation Safety, at the previous budget and supplementary estimates hearings
with respect to circumstances surrounding the resignation of the former
Industry Complaints Commissioner, Mr Michael Hart.[31]
Mr McCormack apologised and corrected his earlier comments to the committee to reflect
that, after the hearings, he did recall receiving a letter of resignation from
Mr Hart as well as a subsequent conversation with Mr Hart about it.[32]
3.32
Mr McCormack has since written to the committee to apologise for the
delay in formally correcting his earlier comments upon realising that his
advice was incorrect. He also sought to clarify aspects of his statements at
the additional estimates hearing, and emphasised that he had no intention at
any of the hearings to misrepresent the information provided to the committee.[33]
Airservices Australia
3.33
The committee received an update on the staffing situation for tower
staff at Launceston Airport, following an incident a couple of years ago where
aircraft landed at the airport after tower hours. Officers reassured the
committee that the issue has been settled and that services are operating
effectively.[34]
3.34
The committee was provided with information on the Airservices Australia
recruitment and training program through the centralised learning academy in
Melbourne.[35]
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
3.35
The committee made reference to the 164 stick-shaker incidents reported
since 2005, and questioned the ATSB about what processes it has in place to
review and reduce the incidence rate. Officers explained that the ATSB reviews
the circumstances of stick-shaker incidents and investigates where there are
cases of genuine and significant safety concern:
We are
focusing on those where it does generally seem to indicate a potential safety
issue. The majority of them are not in that category. As for the trend itself,
we are thinking, given that most of them are signalled by automatic reaction to
turbulence and so on, that we are not yet seeing a systemic problem.[36]
3.36
Other air safety issues were also explored with the ATSB, including
safety education measures and the investigation of potential safety risks.[37]
Senator Glenn
Sterle
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page