The Australian Rail Track Corporation is projected to spend $494 million dollars on acquiring property for the proposed Inland Rail route. Despite rumors of certain people buying land on the route prior to the purchases, the government refuses to release who they are acquiring the properties from with nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Transcript

Happens when you don’t think it through. Thank you, Senator Roberts over to you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing tonight. What is the current budget for property purchases for the Inland Rail project?

It’s $494 million.

494 million, thank you. In the last estimates, I asked Infrastructure Australia a simple question. Who owns the land being purchased by Inland Rail? And I received this response on notice. Quote, the full cost of the property acquired for the Inland Rail project will not be known until all 13 sections of the project are completed. The cost will eventually come out. That’s the end of the quote. Cost will eventually come out, but apparently ownership will not. Firstly, when is Inland Rail scheduled for completion?

Current schedule of completion in late 2026.

[Malcolm] 20.

2026.

2026, thank you. My office is aware of reports as to who bought land prior to the announcement of the Inland Rail alignment, which we of course pay no heed to. So is it the position of the Minister that the public will never be told who owned the land the Australian taxpayers just spent 494, or will spend $494 million buying, and that we’ll have to wait until 2026 or later to find out how much we paid for it?

Yeah, I think per that previous answer, it would not be our intent to disclose the information about individual landowners.

So the taxpayers are paying for something but won’t receive any any accountability for it until another four years, if it’s finished on time? So we can’t find out as representatives of the taxpayers. Okay, let’s move on. In 2010, the ARTC stated Inland Rail would not be cost effective if completed in 2021, but may provide a positive net value by 2035 against a projected cost of $9 billion if rail freight demand increased. In the 2015 business case briefing paper two, the ARTC found $16 billion in GDP increase over the first 50 years. The project tonight I understand we were told is now stated to have a total cost of $14.5 billion, with solid third party, independent assessments, at over $20 billion, some well over $20 billion. When was the last time the cost benefit of Inland Rail was calculated in terms of net present value? And specifically, what was the total financial benefit to the taxpayers over the payback period? And what is the payback period, and what project cost did you do the sums on?

Do you want to give business case?

Do you want me to take?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So since back in 2020 when the increased equity was provided, there was an update to the economic benefits. So there was a revised assessment that came out with a net $18 billion economic benefit over that same period, 50 years, that you mentioned. And in that sort of same timeframe, the Commonwealth Government also did some further studies that looked at some of the economic benefits that would be capitalised, not just from that $18 billion which is really associated with efficiency improvements in the supply chain, but then a further $13.3 billion that was found to be catalysed by the stimulation of further regional economic industry and development. So that was probably the the latest updates in that regard that were undertaken.

And perhaps I can just add the comment that we haven’t seen the full business case. Much of it has been redacted from memory. And the assumptions, in particular, just slight changes in the assumptions can dramatically affect the business case and all the claimed economic benefits. And we’re kept in the dark about some of the assumptions. So I’ll go on to the next question. The Inland Rail business case relies on a series of calculations about transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst many others. By way of example, the share of freight Inland Rail will attract supposedly on the Melbourne to Brisbane route will go from 26% currently to 62% by 2050. And that’s one of the massive assumptions. And these assumptions, models, and calculations are said to be commercially sensitive. So, as I’ve said a minute ago, they’ve not been made public and will not be made public. Is that a correct statement?

It’s exclusive.

Look Senator, the business case for Inland Rail was produced in 2015, which was the last one. Simon, do you want to make?

Yeah, it was certainly public. And I’m not sure exactly what assumption you’re looking at, Senator. It’s not-

Well, I’ll read them again. The transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst other things. And some of the reports that were submitted or made by some of the big four accounting firms or management consulting firms, they’re not available. And we understand that two reports contradict each other.

So Senator, the information that you went through is available. We can certainly, we could talk through it tonight or we could certainly come back to you outside of the session with that information.

We’d appreciate you coming back, that would be great.

Yeah, absolutely. I’m only aware of one. Sorry, I’m aware of one macroeconomic report to do with the assumptions around the GDP and also the market share figures, which was undertaken by the PWC Deloitte. EY undertook a more specific reasonable analysis. We’re not aware that they contradict. They were looking at quite different elements of the benefit streams of the programme.

Well, perhaps we could show you what we mean by that with the reports and with some documents, and you could at the same time as you can come back with your assessment. And we’re happy to arrange that with our office.

[Simon] And we’d been more than happy to do that, Senator.

Thank you very much. Minister, why is this project proceeding when the taxpayers are most likely to lose tens of billions of dollars if the taxpayers are not benefiting qui bono? So who is?

Well, I think based on the answers you’ve received and some of those things that’ll be taken on notice and subject to further conversations between you and the officers from ARTC, I think some of the assumptions underlying your questions may still be in contention. But obviously, the principle is that it’s a project worth backing and the government remains willing to do that for the good of the country. But obviously, further detail required to satisfy the questions you’ve asked so far. And hopefully the officers will give you the answers you’re after.

Okay, Chair, I’d just like to ask two questions, following up on what you asked. Thank you. The preferred alignment from the ARTC 2010 Melbourne-Brisbane alignment study became the final alignment in the 2015 programme business case. Is there any significant change between those two alignments? Because on a map they look the same.

The short answer is yes, that there were some minor adjustments. Off the top of my head, I’m probably couldn’t navigate through all of those. But the Inland Rail, route history document, does detail those and gives a lot of further detail. We can come back with some more if you need.

That’s on the website.

Yeah, that’s on the Inland Rail, the ARTC website, yep.

Okay, thank you. Last question to you. And this may be touching on something that Senator Van asked about. In the last estimates, I asked Major Transport and Infrastructure Projects about Inland Rail environmental impact assessments. And Ms. Hall, the First Assistant Secretary replied, the route has actually been set. This is a quote. The route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities that the environment is protected. So environmental impact assessments are still underway, and yet the route is set. Is it a statement of fact that the final Inland Rail route was decided before the environmental assessment of that route had even been started? So are you backfilling the project? Backfilling the EIS’s?

Senator, I think you’re referring to me. The route has been set. The purpose, as we’ve just discussed before, Minister, Mr. Helena has said is that an EIS process is designed to give assurance to the community, give assurance to the regulatory requirements. A coordinator general, for example, in regards to Queensland will set the conditions by which that piece of infrastructure needs to be built. So that is the purpose of an EIS process.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.