Introduction and background
1.1
On 16 March 2016, the following matters were referred to the Senate Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the committee) for
inquiry and report by 25 August 2016:
State of Australia’s rail industry
and how government procurement, including through the Australian Rail Track
Corporation, and other policy levers can improve the value for money,
competitiveness, stability of work and capability of the rail manufacturing
industry with specific reference to:
-
the importance of
the national rail industry as a regional employer and activity generator, and
the potential costs of further decline of rail manufacturing on the national
and relevant regional economies;
-
the state of the
rail industry, barriers to growth and improved productivity, and the potential
of Australia’s rail industry as a skills and technology incubator, supplier of
domestic rail needs as well as potential exports;
-
the potential for
Australia to benefit from a nationally-coordinated approach to rail
manufacturing standards and rail procurement projects given the size of the
Australian rail industry; and
-
any other related
matters.
1.2
On 9 May
2016, the inquiry lapsed with the dissolution of the Senate and House of
Representatives for a general election on 2 July 2016.[1]
1.3
On 15 September 2016, the Senate agreed to re-refer the inquiry with a
reporting date of 18 October 2017.[2]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.4
The inquiry was advertised in The Australian and on the
committee's webpage. The committee also wrote to Commonwealth and state
government departments, industry stakeholder groups and individuals to invite
submissions. Details regarding the inquiry, and associated documents are available
on the committee's webpage at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Railindustry45.
1.5
The committee received 20 public submissions. A list of submissions is
included at Appendix 1. Public submissions to the inquiry are also published on
the committee's webpage.
1.6
The committee held three public hearings in relation to its inquiry.
They were held in Newcastle on 1 May 2017, Melbourne on 16 June 2017, and
Canberra on 30 August 2017. A list of witnesses who appeared at the hearings is
included at Appendix 2.
1.7
On 1 May 2017, the committee visited engineering company Downer Rail's
workshop site in Cardiff, NSW. The site visit provided the committee with a
first-hand overview of the workshop's provision of technical support, as well
as refurbishment, maintenance, technical and process innovation services to
NSW's rail industry. The committee was also provided with an overview of the type
of work undertaken by the company's skilled workforce, including its structural
engineers, spray painters, tradesmen and trade assistants.
Early development of rail infrastructure
1.8
The history of Australia is clearly reflected in its current rail infrastructure
system. Australia's geography, its sparse population, political system and the historical
role and past decisions of governments have all had an influence on the
development of Australia's rail industry. Government regulation, investment
decisions affecting the performance of different modes of transport, changes in
technology, and private enterprise, have also contributed to the nation's
current land transport system, including its railways.
1.9
Prior to the federation of the states in 1901, the development of rail networks
in each of the states occurred independently of each other. During the boom
years of railway expansion – between 1860 and 1890[3]
– each colony developed its own railway network. Very little consideration was given,
at the time, to how these various networks could operate together as part of a
single network, and connect across interstate borders.
1.10
Most of the impetus for the early development of rail was driven by
immediate commercial imperatives
– to connect rural
areas to their nearest capital cities and local ports for the transportation of
materials – primarily for trade. As a result, the first railway networks in the
colonies were built and operated by private companies. Most of these private
operations proved unsustainable, however, and government guarantees and
financial capital were required to complete the lines.[4]
1.11
In much the same way as today's states make decisions to protect their
own interests, individual colonies pre-Federation acted for the benefit of
their own constituents. As colonies viewed each other as competition for trade
and export, there was very little incentive to work together to coordinate a
railway network that crossed each other's territory. This situation continued
past Federation, with land transport remaining largely a state responsibility
and the fledgling states continuing to control the country's land transport
networks via their regulatory structures.[5]
Consequently, most of the rail construction efforts stopped at state
boundaries.
1.12
The impact of the competing colonies' short-sighted decision-making was
underlined by the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development (DIRD) Mr Mike Mrdak, who observed:
What linked the colonies through the Federation at the time
was rail, apart from Western Australia initially. It was interesting that one
of the things that they left out of the powers of the Commonwealth was rail.
Even though it was very much the lifeblood of the transport system of the late
19th century, it was expressly excluded from a Commonwealth responsibility by
the constitutional founders because it was seen as potentially the national
government shouldn't be interfering in the powers of the states and their
ability to still compete with each other. It's a problem that still haunts us
because, not only have we had to deal with the spectre of three rail gauges,
which is a unique phenomenon globally that we've done that, but for much of the
last 116 years, we've also dealt with something even more difficult, which is
state-based regulation of transport operations.
....viewed from the perspective of a newly-formed Federation,
the short-sightedness of individual decisions of that time for the colonies was
glaring. What we've discovered over the last century is that it makes the need
for a government that takes responsibilities for the nation, for matters
affecting the nation as a whole, really important.[6]
1.13
It was in the late 20th century, as Australia's economy became
more open to trade in other markets, when state regulations were identified as
a barrier to interstate trade and the growth of the economy. The disjointed
network across several
jurisdictions also became an obvious impediment to the benefits of federalism – the security of a national defence force,
removal of trade tariffs and increased access to trade and commerce in a single
national market.
1.14
There have been attempts
made to establish a more coordinated rail transport system, but change has been
very gradual and it continues to be a work in progress. Some of the 'legacy'
challenges, and the entrenched problems which arose as a result of states
adopting different rail gauges and regulatory structures, are outlined later in
this chapter.
1.15
Notwithstanding the efforts made by federal and state jurisdictions in
working toward a coordinated interstate network, the lack of harmonisation
across the various railway networks remains a hindrance to the country's
connectivity. Each state and territory continues to manage its own distinct
railway network and rail manufacturing economy.
1.16
The lack of systemic coordination across Australia's rail industry was identified
as a significant issue by a number of submitters and witnesses.[7]
A history of differences
1.17
The following section outlines some of the differences across rail
networks. It considers the impact of the lack of interstate rail harmonisation,
including rail gauges (the distance between the rails) and regulatory
structures on the costs to safety and the economy.
Rail gauge
1.18
Australia's railway networks operate on different gauges. As a
consequence of the separate development of rail networks under the auspices of different
state governments, the railway networks also operate according to different
standards and practices. Rail lines, equipment and operating practices across
networks are not compatible, and efforts to standardise have proved difficult
and not always practical. One such example is the use of different rail gauges.
This particular difference has proved a major obstacle to standardising the
states and territories' railway networks.
1.19
Historically, travel between cities and states required that passengers
and freight be transferred between trains (operating on different rail gauges)
at the border or at rail junctions. Given the construction of railways was
intended to link each capital city with its outer towns and regions – rather
than connect the interstate capital cities – the use of different rail gauge
systems, at least initially, was not cause for concern among the colonial
governments. The problem did, however, become acute when it was recognised that
the rapid passage of supplies and troops across the states (particularly during
the two World Wars) was impeded by the absence of a standardised rail gauge
network.[8]
1.20
Currently, the most common rail gauges in Australia are the standard,
narrow and broad gauges. When railway construction began in Australia in the
1850s, however, different rail gauges were adopted depending on the individual
preference of those constructing them. The standard gauge (1435mm), which was
used in England and Europe, was adopted in NSW, while the broad gauge (1600mm) which
was more widely used in Ireland, was adopted in Victoria and parts of South
Australia. Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia adopted the narrow gauge
system (1067mm) as this was cheaper to build in more remote places. The narrow
gauge system, which required less land clearance, was particularly useful for
industries such as timber and mining.[9]
1.21
While the process of converting Australia's interstate rail network to a
standard gauge track finally began in the 1930s, the complete harmonisation of
the various rail gauges has yet to be completed. A national standard gauge
network which connects the capital cities does exist. It is, however, not
practical or feasible to standardise all rail gauges across Australia. By using
the state of Queensland as an example, the difficulties associated with standardising
rail gauges can be clearly illustrated:
Queensland has around 9000 km of narrow gauge track. Around
2500 km of this track in Central Queensland (CQ) caters for in excess of 200
million tonnes of coal freight annually and that transport is from mines in CQ
to adjacent ports. The cost of changing gauge for this network would be in the
many 10s of billions of dollars with negligible change in rail productivity
arising from any reconstruction to standard gauge.[10]
1.22
The rail connection between capital cities on the eastern seaboard was
only completed in 1995, between Melbourne and Adelaide. It took another ten
years before a standard gauge network connected Alice Springs to Darwin in
January 2004.[11]
State and territory development of rail infrastructure
New South Wales
-
NSW's first rail link was constructed between Sydney and
Parramatta, for the primary purpose of transporting the valuable wool clip to
Sydney by train. The project was initially backed by wealthy pastoralists, but
ultimately Sydney investors provided the funds and the Sydney Railway Company
(incorporated in 1849) commenced the work in 1850. During construction, the
project ran into financial problems and was taken over by the colonial
government. The line eventually opened on 26 September 1855.[12]
Victoria
-
The country's first railway line opened between Melbourne's
Flinders Street Station and Port Melbourne on 12 September 1854 (and has since
been incorporated into Melbourne's electric light railway (tram) system).[13]
South Australia
-
In 1856, the first steam powered trains built by the South
Australian colonial government operated between Adelaide and Port Adelaide.
Prior to this in 1854, the state had a horse-drawn railway operating at the
mouth of the Murray River.[14]
Queensland
-
The first railway in Queensland ran from Ipswich inland to
Grandchester using the narrow 1067 mm gauge. The system was extended further to
the Darling Downs before being connected with Brisbane in 1875.[15]
Western Australia
-
The first railway in Western Australia began operating in 1871,
and was run by a private railway company which transported timber from Lockville
to Yoganup, south of Perth. The first government railway opened in 1879 between
Geraldton and Northampton. In the 19th century the network in
south-western Western Australia was built as 1067 mm gauge lines, but in the 20th
century the eastern states were connected to Perth and Esperance with standard
1435 mm gauge lines.[16]
Tasmania
-
A railway line 72 km long opened between the Northern Tasmanian
towns of Launceston and Deloraine in 1868. It was built to the 1800 mm gauge by
operator Launceston and Western Railway Company. Subsequently, the Tasmanian
government passed an act of Parliament incorporating the Tasmanian Mainline
Railway Company. This company built the main line between Launceston and the
state capital, Hobart.[17]
Northern Territory
-
On 1 October 1889, a railway between Darwin and Pine Creek (253
km) became operational. The line was never profitable, and Pine Creek was taken
over by the Australian Government in 1911. The line was subsequently
incorporated into the North Australia Railway's operations (linking Darwin with
Birdum) until its closure in 1929. The completion of the Alice Springs to
Darwin standard gauge rail link in January 2004 resulted in a national rail
network linking all mainland state and territory capital cities.[18]
Australian Capital Territory
-
The first railway infrastructure was constructed in the ACT when
a 10 km standard gauge branch line opened between Queanbeyan, NSW, and Canberra
in 1914. Passenger operations commenced in 1923.[19]
Regulatory structures
1.23
The committee received a number of submissions which pointed to inefficiencies
within the rail manufacturing industry. It was noted that regulatory
structures, in relation to matters such as safety, training and recognition of
qualifications can differ considerably under different regulatory structures and
across different jurisdictions. Submitters were consistent in their view that "greater harmonisation of
standards, regulations and procurement practices across all rail sectors is
required" and that "best practice in tendering will reduce the cost
burden."[20] It was acknowledged, however,
that the process required to reach this end has remained a wicked problem.
1.24
In June 2003, the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board (RISSB), was
established by the Australasian Railway Association (ARA). RISSB is a
not-for-profit company which is owned, and largely funded, by its industry
members. It does, however, receive some funding from both the Commonwealth and
state governments.[21]
1.25
RISSB has as its primary responsibility the development and management
of rail industry standards, rules, codes of practice and guidelines – all of
which have national application.[22]
It has been charged with harmonising standards and practices to generate
interoperability, and to improve safety and efficiency across the railway
sector. RISSB is the single body accredited by Standards Australia to develop
national rail standards.
1.26
Stakeholders noted that the benefits of harmonising the different
systems are obvious –
including increased efficiencies from not having to deal with a myriad of
different standards across the industry.
It was also acknowledged, however, that the mandatory adoption of new
standards and codes of practice across the industry is not always economically
feasible and could, at times, be counterproductive.[23]
1.27
The industry has therefore, largely supported a progressive, voluntary
adoption approach to harmonising standards and practices – an approach that takes
an individual company's situation into consideration. The current approach also
allows a company to consider whether there is a business case for change within
its operations, and takes account of both the cost and benefits of any change.[24]
It was noted, however, that there are some areas where mandatory harmonisation is
required – particularly around matters of safety, such as rolling stock
lighting where the standard specifies the visibility and layout of this
lighting.[25]
1.28
RISSB's role in working toward regulatory consistency is discussed
further in Chapter 2.
Legacy issues
1.29
Given the history of rail, and the differences adopted by states and
territories there are a number of 'legacy' issues which continue to create
problems across the sector. While the different rail gauges and individual
regulatory structures have already been referred to, differences in relation to
standards and codes of practice are also 'legacy' issues, which can have an
impact on safety performance, economic productivity and efficiency.
Safety standards
1.30
The 2012 Taig Review[26]
noted that safety standards and the measurement of safety performance are not
measured or monitored well at the national level. It was noted that information
on accidents is recorded differently by individual state regulators and that available
data is presented in formats that are not comparable. As a result, often the
data – which is collated and published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau
(ATSB) – is not useful or meaningful. The Taig Review noted, for example, that the
information provided in relation to serious incidents and fatalities was not
disaggregated to separate those people (passengers, staff, and members of the
public) injured from accidents and those suspected of suicide.[27]
Fragmented markets and issues of
scale
1.31
Rather than Australia being represented by one central, national market,
Australia has historically been made up of a number of smaller, fragmented rail
markets. This fact continues to act as a deterrent to investment in larger
scale manufacture and innovation. Issues of scale also act as a barrier to
expansion, and these problems are compounded by the inefficiencies associated
with manufacturing railway products to different standards and specifications.
Continuity of production
1.32
The lack of a strong pipeline of investment in rolling stock has
resulted in a lack of continuity in rail manufacturing. If Australia's rail
industry is to be sustainable, this situation needs to change. The current ad hoc
approach to rolling stock orders continues to create uncertainty for
manufacturers and is a disincentive for businesses to invest in expensive
capital and research and development. The Rail Manufacturing CRC (RMCRC) refers
to this lack of investment certainty and 'stop-start' cycle of production as
the 'valley of death', a term used in defence manufacturing.[28]
Lack of innovation
1.33
As the Australian economy transitions towards knowledge-based
industries, the low level of innovation being implemented across the industry continues
to be both a concern and a key challenge for the rail manufacturing sector.
1.34
A lack of certainty about future contracts, a lack of continuity and a
lack of technical expertise have contributed to an understandable lack of
confidence around investing in innovation and technology. In the long term,
however, the Australian rail manufacturing industry will not be able to
maintain its viability without increased export offerings and competitiveness –
the path to which is innovation.[29]
Procurement
1.35
The various state jurisdictions are not required to coordinate or
benchmark their procurement efforts. This factor continues to have an impact on
procurement efficiencies and has led to clashes in timing of tendering
obligations, complexities in design and build, the low volume of orders (impacting
a longer-term, national pipeline for wagon builds) and the ability to maintain
a standing workforce and tooling lines. These inefficiencies continue to have
an impact on value for money, for both consumers and taxpayers.[30]
The need for harmonisation
1.36
The legacy issues arising from the separate development of railways and
a lack of harmonisation continue to prove costly. Stakeholders, including the
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) stressed the seriousness of the
situation:
Unfortunately, across Australia, each State still ‘does its
own thing’ in designing and ordering its public transport rolling stock. This
lack of national consistency in procurement, design and standards is creating
vast inefficiencies for local manufacturers. This undermines local jobs.
Without action, this fragmented approach could see the loss of our local
industry altogether before long.[31]
1.37
The Taig Review indicated that although state and federal governments
are investing heavily in rail, what remains absent is a strong focus on the
outcomes at the national level. The review argued that this is borne out by the
absence of an overview of public spending on railways, at both state and
federal levels, and lack of uniformity in the reporting of safety performance
across the different jurisdictions.[32]
Role of the Commonwealth
1.38
The Commonwealth government has long recognised the problems presented
by Australia's diverse rail operating environment and has played a major role
in breaking down barriers to harmonisation,
and in encouraging states to work toward the development of common standards,
practices and interoperability, wherever practicable.
1.39
The Australian
Government, through DIRD, has played a central role in developing a national rail policy and
supporting cross-jurisdictional regulatory bodies such as the RISSB to push for national standards. DIRD
also provides financial support to the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC)
and provides funding to states and territories for rail projects.[33]
1.40
The ARTC, which was
established in 1998 by the Australian Government (with support from the
mainland state governments), manages and develops Australia's interstate track
infrastructure as a single entity. The entity, which is wholly owned by the
Australian Government, manages over 8500 km of standard gauge track. Most of
this is through direct ownership and long term leases of state owned track
between Kalgoorlie in Western Australia and Acacia Ridge in southern Brisbane.[34]
1.41
Through the ARTC's
ownership and lease of the interstate line, the six separate state-based
arrangements (which historically governed mainland interstate rail operations)
have gradually been replaced with a single set of common rules, operating
standards and access regulations. This represents a significant efficiency
achievement – particularly for rail freight in Australia.[35]
1.42
DIRD has continued to work with state governments to coordinate change.
With support from DIRD, and in consultation with other jurisdictions, the
Victorian Government has been taking a lead role (on behalf of all
jurisdictions) in the area of developing national rolling stock standards and a
national rolling stock procurement approach.[36]
1.43
The Australian Government also has a role to play to encourage
innovation in the rail manufacturing industry. Through the RMCRC, it has been
able to facilitate collaborative research projects between industry and
research institutions. The RMCRC provides the nationally coordinated approach
to research – beyond policy initiatives that are being pursued by state
governments – that is required from the Australian Government.
1.44
Infrastructure
Australia has also had a role in coordinating the country's rail infrastructure.
Infrastructure Australia's 2016 Infrastructure Plan and Priority List contain
93 specific projects targeted for completion over the next 15 years. More than
half of these projects and initiatives (48) involve passenger and freight rail.[37]
Key issues
1.45
In undertaking its inquiry into the state of Australia's rail industry,
the committee undertook to investigate how government procurement, through the
ARTC and other policy levers, can be used to achieve value for money and
improve competitiveness, continuity of work, and the capability of the rail
manufacturing industry.
1.46
The history of Australia's rail networks, coupled with the fact that
they span large areas and operate across state boundaries, has, over the years
led to a number of difficulties for the sector. The committee received evidence
about the issues currently facing the sector, including the current barriers to
competition and productivity – the solutions to which are complicated.
1.47
As part of its inquiry, the committee examined the regulatory environment
under which the rail industry operates, and received evidence regarding the
need for a national approach to standards. The report outlines the progress
that has been made toward the harmonisation of the national rail network and
stakeholders' views regarding ways to increase cooperation across the sector
and increase Commonwealth and state commitment to harmonisation.
1.48
Overwhelmingly, evidence to the inquiry stressed the importance of the
rail industry – both as a regional employer and an activity generator. The
report examines the potential impact a further decline of rail manufacturing
could have on both the national and regional economies and Australia's
transport infrastructure.
1.49
Evidence to the inquiry indicated that Australia's need for additional
transport infrastructure has led to an increase in Commonwealth and state
investment across the sector. It was also observed that over the coming years,
the growing Asia-Pacific markets will be looking for suppliers. The report
outlines stakeholders' views in relation to how the industry – including
manufacturers and suppliers – can take advantage of the growing markets (and
the additional funding) to shape a world class industry which incorporates
world class research and development, standards and technology.
Structure of the report
1.50
The following chapter (Chapter 2) provides an overview of the current
state of Australia's rail industry, including the regulatory environment and
current procurement and local content guidelines. Chapter 2 provides an overview
of the roles currently undertaken by the ARTC and the RISSB and outlines the
progress that has been made in relation to the standardisation and
harmonisation of Australia's rail network. The chapter also identifies some of
the issues which currently act as barriers to productivity and restrict
competitiveness and growth in the rail sector.
1.51
Chapter 3 expands on the importance of Australia's rail industry and the
contribution it makes to Australia's economy. The chapter also outlines the
consequences should there be a decline in the Australian rail manufacturing
sector, and the impact any loss of capability could potentially have in
relation to issues of transport infrastructure, access, regional employment and
the Australian economy.
1.52
Chapter 4 reviews some of the barriers to growth and productivity which
were identified by stakeholders, including the regulatory environment and the
need for further investment in rail infrastructure. The chapter also examines
the positive impact technology, national coordination, national procurement
guidelines and cooperation between the Commonwealth and states could have on
the sector. The chapter outlines some of the strategies proposed by
stakeholders, and suggestions ways in which governments can support these strategies,
to the benefit of the industry, at a national level.
1.53
Chapter 5 outlines the committee's view and includes a series of
recommendations. The committee's recommendations are made with the aim of
supporting the rail sector as it develops strategies to increase its
productivity, competitiveness and capability through the implementation of
workforce training, national standards, research and development and
technology.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page