Austral Obscura: National Rail Policy?: and - Work - Program PDF

Austral obscura: national rail policy?
In 2015 Australias transport Ministers joined together to develop a national rail

policy. That this has gone unnoticed is unsurprising and appropriate.
A national rail policy, faithful to the nature and history of federal Australia is
needed. It is a simple task. The critical and first step is removal of the distorting
obstacle that stops progress in national transport matters; the Commonwealth-
State Transport and Infrastructure Council.
Introduction
Australias peak transport body is the Transport and Infrastructure Council. It
comprises Commonwealth and State Ministers and is served by a Commonwealth
Department secretariat and various officials committees.
In 2015 it decided there is to be a national rail policy agenda. The result, more
than 12 months later, is a vision statement and work program:
http://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/National_rail_vision_
and_work_program.pdf.
The offering
At 6 pages long, conforming to bureaucratic templates and agreed by all
Ministers, some might consider the vision etc. to be an achievement.
Consider:
Through collaboration between governments and industry, rail reform will
support the Directions of the Transport and Infrastructure Council by
enhancing productivity, competitiveness and liveability by:
Integrating rail with other transport modes to enhance the
functionality of the transport network,
improving rails efficiency, capacity and environmental performance;
accessing sustainable funding and delivery models;
capitalising on new technologies; and
improving rail safety.
Who could object to such lofty sentiments? I could and do. It reflects much that
is wrong with national transport policy. It threatens to set rail back years.
It is just platitudes. The vision offers nothing to see; nobody could discern what
Australias railways should look like.
The public who pay the bills of the Council and its caravan would recoil if they
saw such formulaic drivel.
It would have brought the Council into disrepute if it was noticed. Fortunately it
was ignored - the media stayed away in droves. Like most outputs of the
Council it will soon be forgotten. But in the meantime, bureaucracies will stultify
progress on rail matters by pointing to the possibility the Council might come up
with something. As they say: as if.
What the policy should be
1
A rail policy should aim at:
The right amount of rail services;
The right type of rail services.
A national rail policy requires an overlay to deal with essential national

characteristics. For Australia the outstanding characteristic is the break of gauge
in railways that should link settlements. Resolution of this was among the
motives for, and actions expected of the Commonwealth after, federation.
Australias national aim for railway types should be: interoperability of a linking
railway.
There remains the question of the amount of rail services. The right amount
would reflect the situation of rail beneficiaries - and beneficiaries of competing
services such as roads - bearing the costs they cause.
This is not the case at present and the scant prospect of this changing is being
further minimised by Council attempts to advance universal road pricing and
deny the fact of enormous subsidies to east coast highways. Happily, for the
purposes of moving towards the right amount of rail services, these can be
ignored. It is possible, and simple, to estimate the right amount of rail services
as if rail and road beneficiaries bore the costs they cause.
The issue, rail or road (or air etc.), arises only where there is a (possible) railway.
It is a question about the real costs of road use for the very few routes where a
rail-road comparison makes sense.
An example: the main intercapital route in Australia is the Hume Highway. Costs
and use of the adjacent railway are known. The necessary information is: truck
use of the highway; costs of the highway including sunk capital. While this
information is known it is not readily available.
It is possible to increase the sophistication of analysis by considering emissions

etc. However, Australia is not at first base in national transport analysis because
it has not considered the as if scenario for the Hume Highway or any other road.
The pivotal rail issues have been known for, but have not started to be
addressed after, at least a quarter of a century of Councils existence.
Governments implicitly acknowledge the problem by seeking to shore up the rail
industry via taxpayer funded spending on rail corridor strategies to try to offset
the impact of the vast public monies spent on competing roads.
The Transport and Infrastructure Council, by promoting a rail work program that
ignores this singularly critical issue and topical matters such as higher speed
rail, rail plans for capital cities, rural branchlines, skills, value capture etc.
preferring to rerun red-herrings addressed years ago, virtually announced it
stands in the way of progress.
The unwillingness to advance a highway-rail analysis will destroy any chance for
a national rail policy and the credibility of those in government who argue for any
transport reform.
2
Why has it gone astray?
The problems lie with the Transport and Infrastructure Council.
The kindest interpretation is that Council is confused.

Its interest in regulatory reform is addled by the fact while all road use is
regulated any road reform must be regulatory this is not the case for rail. Its
stubbornly held view of rail reform is unable to advance the national
consistency expected by the public and indeed history.
It does not display adequate comprehension about many matters it promulgates

such as pricing or the matters in the rail work program. Many of its activities
appear to be make work ideas. It ignores ports.
It has proven incapable of maintaining a consistent or coherent approach. Not

only has it been unable to define or explain what any national transport policy
might comprise, ignoring the one cogent exposition adopted in the early 2000s,
it frequently drops without explanation forgets - what it has done. Under its
guidance key parts of the national transport field periodically become terra
incognita.
It seems to resist independent advice counsel from outside self-interested

bureaucracies. The infrequent advice it is given includes cries of frustration over
the key issues Council ignores. Indeed the idea of a national rail policy arose out
of such a plea.
The Council has not apparently considered the implications of the Williams
decisions which should have fundamentally altered its character and operation.
Commonwealth representation and support arrangements for the Council should
have changed and the Parliament should be much better informed about the
Councils activities.
This attempt at a national rail policy should signal the end of the Council. Yet
nobody important is paying attention.
Even so, even if nobody presently cares what it does, it is important for advisers
to know the Council acts like an obscura creating images that are indistinct and
sometimes reversed and inverted. The result is delay or prevention of national
progress. No wonder interested groups sometimes propose new advisory bodies
or write their own versions of national transport policy.
The Councils problem is structural, governance related. That it is not party

political, personalities or procedural is demonstrated by its recurrence under
different Commonwealth and State Governments, many different Ministers and
officials and attempts to get a real agenda. It is time for the Council to be
abolished and for Australia to look at reality.
To those who argue that for its retention on the grounds that Commonwealth-
State Ministerial Councils have some intrinsic value: what has the analogous
Ministerial Council on energy done to ensure Australia wont face electricity and
gas crises?
3
Without the Council there would be an opportunity for real national progress on
rail and other transport matters. A revival of the Constitutions Interstate
Commission might assist.
J Austen
30 March 2017
John Austen is a happily retired, Sydney western suburbs dweller. Further

details are at thejadebeagle.com.
Tags: infrastructure; railways, Commonwealth-State relations.

Austral Obscura: National Rail Policy?: and - Work - Program PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austral Obscura: National Rail Policy?: and - Work - Program PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austral Obscura: National Rail Policy?: and - Work - Program PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austral obscura: national rail policy?

In 2015 Australias transport Ministers joined together to develop a national rail

A national rail policy requires an overlay to deal with essential national

It is possible to increase the sophistication of analysis by considering emissions

The kindest interpretation is that Council is confused.

It does not display adequate comprehension about many matters it promulgates

It has proven incapable of maintaining a consistent or coherent approach. Not

It seems to resist independent advice counsel from outside self-interested

The Councils problem is structural, governance related. That it is not party

John Austen is a happily retired, Sydney western suburbs dweller. Further

You might also like