Inland Rail is a crucial project for Australia’s future and for the viability of the national highway network. As our population grows, the road network will become increasingly congested with large trucks. Creating an inland rail link between Melbourne and Brisbane will remove hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the road, while providing safer and faster freight transit.

Inland Rail has been problematic from the start due to the LNP Government’s decision to use a route (an alignment) that favoured certain landholders, airport owners, and port owners – in other words party donors. To please these interest groups, Inland Rail was designed to cross the Condamine River floodplain east of Millmerran before going across to Toowoomba, then down the range into Brisbane, with the The Port of Brisbane being the primary export port.

This route is patently stupid for several reasons. Crossing the Condamine floodplain is not technically feasible. The embankment necessary is located on about 30 m depth of clay, which becomes waterlogged and soft with a rain event known to occur, on average, every two years. Running a 40,000 tonne train across soft ground is unsafe. Even a few days of rain will require speeds to be slowed to 40 km/h, causing shipment delays, higher cost and destroying agriculture in the region through frequent flooding as flood water builds up behind the embankment.

Have we learnt nothing form the MITEZ rail link, which was also built across a floodplain and has been a drain on taxpayers ever since.

The second reason is because the Brisbane rail network is close to capacity and the corridor is constrained, meaning extra lines can’t be added. By the time trains are running along Inland Rail, there will be no slots left to bring the freight to the port. This is why there is now an insane suggestion to build a 60 km TUNNEL under Brisbane to bring the freight through.

You think cross-river rail is a disaster? This project is ten times the length, and should be ten times the cost = $60 billion – just for the tunnel. And remember, this is all taxpayer’s money that will never be repaid from rail revenue.

One Nation supports directing Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, where a modern container facility is currently under construction. This would require the alignment to turn north before Millmerran and head up to Dalby, with Wellcamp Airport and Brisbane freight coming back to the existing line, something that will be no slower because of the higher speeds available on this alignment.

Port of Gladstone is best located, cheaper and more efficient than Brisbane, with room to grow. The best news of all – the Millmerran to Port of Gladstone route has a strong advocate with IPG and is already holding offers of finance from infrastructure investment funds.

One Nation’s solution means no public money and a smarter route. ALP/LNP means $60 billion of taxpayers money for a slower, unreliable and more costly option.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Where is the Inland Rail missing link at—Narromine to Narrabri? Where is that?

Mr Miller: I can update you on that. The Narromine to Narrabri section has completed all its planning approvals, so the primary planning approvals both at a state level and at a federal level have been granted. We are
in a process of voluntary land acquisition. To date, on the section, we’ve completed around 23 per cent of the land acquisition through the alignment. We’re in the process of leading to some preliminary design contracts to inform us around scope, schedule and engineering design. And we’ve commenced the Pilliga revocation process through the Pilliga forest, with the New South Wales government. So it’s tracking well.

Senator ROBERTS: Have any of the Queensland sections of Inland Rail started construction?

Mr Miller: They haven’t started construction, Senator. We’re still in the planning processes in Queensland. Importantly, for the very significant section from the New South Wales-Queensland border to Gowrie, the final i’s have been dotted and t’s are being crossed in relation to the EIS submission. We expect to lodge that with the office of the Coordinator-General during November, and it will be up to the Coordinator-General as to the public exhibition, which we would hope would be underway this side of Christmas.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the ARTC been contacted by the PortConnex consortium, who are wanting to build their 60-kilometre tunnel under Brisbane?

Mr Miller: I have met with Martin Albrecht and his team. Importantly, we’ve got a very clear scope within Inland Rail, so it was really to inform that connection group as to where Inland Rail was at for their planning
processes, and they informed us as to their program of a 60-kilometre tunnel with the electric train model. But, essentially, our scope of work does not include that, and we continue with the primary planning approvals from Gowrie to Kagaru.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen a business case, an environmental study and engineering details? We feel the cost for Inland Rail is undercooked and the economic benefits overstated.

Mr Miller: Could I clarify—are you referring to the alternate route 60-kilometre tunnel for $7 billion?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Miller: I’ve not seen their business case, no.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the whole Inland Rail? Has the business case been developed?

Mr Miller: The business case was developed some years ago, prior to my time.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked it?

Mr Miller: As the department outlined today, one of the recommendations under the Kerry Schott review was to have a verification process. The department has just recently appointed an entity to assist with that verification process, and they’re commencing works this month to verify both the cost and schedule that Inland Rail has developed internally.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Inland Rail alignment still go across the Condamine flood plain? Have those engineering issues been resolved?

Mr Miller: We believe so. There has been extensive work around erosion velocities associated with those black soils. We’re about to commence embankment trials in that area to understand the shrink-swell characteristics and the erosive characteristics of those soils. We’ve had an international flood panel. The Queensland government and the Commonwealth did an independent review of the flood solutions. So we do
believe that we have a solution for the Condamine.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you had contact with the I-PG, Inter-Port Global, led consortium offering to assist the Commonwealth government to build a forestry route alignment to Ducklo, then along the existing alignment to Dalby, with the Wellcamp and Brisbane freight route heading south-east and export freight heading north via Wandoan, Banana and on to the port of Gladstone?

Mr Miller: I’m aware of that proposal to Gladstone. I have not had engagement with that consortia. The reason, again, is it’s outside the scope of Inland Rail and the approved project works that the Commonwealth has
outlined for our project.

Senator ROBERTS: There seem to be many benefits to that route. The cost of that route, which is mostly along either existing alignment or state government land, would not require tunnelling, would be faster and
technically feasible, would not cross the Condamine flood plain and will attract private investment. Minister, why is the Albanese government not seriously looking at the I-PG consortium proposal?

Senator Chisholm: I’d have to take it on notice, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Miller, with regard to the current project parameters that you’ve used, if there’s something attractive outside that, what would you do? What options do have?

Mr Miller: Essentially, we’ve got real clarity in terms of our current scope, but, in any engineering solution, we look at options. We look at the consideration of engineering optionality and impacts on communities. We have locked the alignment, essentially, and we’re going through an EIS process. We think that’s where it becomes critically important. The EIS environmental approval process is effectively working with the community and the stakeholders to come up with a solution with the least impacts for that area. Now, we understand that building a 1,650-kilometre rail alignment up the inland of Australia is going to have impacts. Our duty is to minimise those impacts and consult with stakeholders and communities, and through the EIS approval process is how we’re regulated, effectively, on the impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, there are many cost benefits to terminating the Inland Rail at Gladstone instead of Brisbane. There are many overall benefits to the nation in terms of the cost of freight coming
into the country and in terms of port access. There is a huge amount of land available at Gladstone. There are many, many factors in favour of Gladstone, and there are many hairs on Brisbane.

Mr Johnson: We have met with the consortium from GreenLink, who are proposing and considering—

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s GreenLink?

Mr Johnson: GreenLink is the organisation you’re referring to, that you’re talking about—

Senator ROBERTS: I-PG?

Mr Johnson: Toowoomba to Gladstone. We have met with them, and, as they go through their relevant approvals and development of their own business case, we’ve committed to them to be able to provide them any
input to the types of operational information that help them on their way, as we do for many adjoining infrastructure owners. Just to clarify, though, what is really clear, from both our position and what’s being
proposed, is the discussion about how they leverage the backbone of what Inland Rail is and its connection at Toowoomba. It is not a replacement. That’s my understanding. Senator ROBERTS: What was the name of that company, again?

Mr Johnson: GreenLink.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any connection with I-PG, Inter-Port Global?

Mr Johnson: Not that I’m aware of. I don’t know, sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t had connection with I-PG?

Mr Johnson: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.