Railway (Butler to Brighton) Bill 2009
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [2.28 pm]: The Greens (WA) will be supporting this bill. I am always happy to be able to be part of facilitating the growth of the urban passenger rail network. It will be no surprise to the minister that the Greens are big fans of rail. However, this bill also provides a good opportunity for me to make some general comments about how far I think we still need to go in this state in providing and also facilitating public transport in Perth—not just in the northern corridor, which is proposed to be serviced by the extension of the Clarkson line, but also across the metropolitan area and, in particular, in my region, the East Metropolitan Region, which the minister will not be surprised to hear me say has been left lagging behind by successive governments for quite some time. The region is probably now due its fair share, when it comes to additional rail.
We know that the northern train line is certainly —
Hon Simon O’Brien: You have more railway lines than any other region.
Hon ALISON XAMON: And we need more! And we know —
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members!
Hon ALISON XAMON: We know that the northern train line is particularly well utilised, as are all our train lines, and that there is huge public demand for more rail services. We cannot seem to build fast enough to keep up with that demand. I understand that the northern train line in Perth has effectively been creaking under the strain of its own success for a number of years. Taking the interjection from my colleague, Hon Lynn MacLaren, I note that that is also the case with the southern line. It is also the case with the eastern line. There is no doubt that rail is popular. Apparently the northern line reached its 10-year projected passenger targets within seven years. We also know—Hon Ken Travers has already made reference to this—that the capacity of the various Park ‘n’ Ride facilities has been shown to be under increasing strain and seriously inadequate. I certainly hope that we do not lose too many people from using trains on a regular basis due to a lack of parking facilities. Obviously, my preferred option is to see a significant increase in the number of feeder services to our train stations, particularly central area transit buses. Hopefully, in the very near future, the government will invest in light rail.
When I was briefed on this bill, I thought of that phrase from a cheesy Kevin Costner film—“If you build it, they will come.” It really seems to be the case that we cannot get enough of rail; the people of Perth certainly want it. I am not trying to be oversimplistic. I recognise that the government needs to facilitate the provision of public transport that is timely and, of course, safe—safety is a big issue for me—and affordable. I suggest that Hon Ken Travers may not want to mention cost-recovery ideas, lest this government get the idea that it perhaps wants to look at full cost recovery for public transport. That would not be a great idea. We do not want to put such ideas in government members’ heads. I am not suggesting that that is what Hon Ken Travers said; however, we certainly do not want to go down that path because public transport really does save money in so many other areas—as I know Hon Ken Travers is completely aware.
People are certainly flocking to use public transport in ever greater numbers than the transport planners seem to be able to anticipate, even in the first instance; however, I will get to that point in a moment. The Clarkson train is a good example. I understand from the Minister for Transport’s second reading speech that in the “Northern Suburbs Transit System – Currambine to Butler Extension: Interim Master Plan” of March 2000 Clarkson station was expected to attract around 3 000 customers every working day by 2006. I understand that the station’s opening was delayed until October 2004, or a little later, yet by March 2009 more than 3 500 people caught the train from Clarkson on a typical working day. Apparently this was considered an unexpected success; however, I really do not know why because we seem to find that the number of people who use trains regularly outstrips the number of forecast users.
While undertaking additional research for this bill, I read the Hansard from the other place. When debating this bill, the member for Mindarie—who often has some rather interesting things to say, albeit on this occasion I thought he was spot on—described the Clarkson station as a hugely popular station and said that the car park was swamped with vehicles. Of course, the member for Mindarie is right. The second reading speech stated —
The population of the corridor from Clarkson to the north is expected to increase from around 41 000 in 2008 to about 84 000 in 2014 …
This is not the first time that we have heard similar predictions. There seems to be an inevitability about these sorts of predictions, which is of concern to the Greens. It worries us all that on the one hand we are being told that there is a move towards high-density, transit-oriented developments—TODs—around infill opportunities, such as at Stirling station and Bassendean, but on the other hand, as outlined in this bill, we are being told that the corridor north of Clarkson will ultimately extend all the way to Yanchep. What we have been told so far in the debate on the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 4) (Planning) Bill, which is yet to go through, is that what the Greens believe are heavy-handed planning instruments, such as development application panels, are essential to drive increases in urban density. But at the same time as we are debating that, we are being told with this bill that the Perth urban sprawl will continue to roll on. It is of increasing concern that this expansion of the urban footprint is coming about at not only a great social cost but also a great environmental cost. I keep talking in this place about Perth being the biodiversity capital of the world. I have decided that I am going to say that as often as I possibly can. We need to remember that when we are looking at expansion, we are not just looking at expanding into former farming areas where the land use conflict is more straightforward; we are continuing to bulldoze into the remaining urban bushland. We are continuing to create outer suburbs that are becoming increasingly isolated from necessary infrastructure. A train line is only part of that necessary infrastructure. By building these outer suburbs, we are continuing to populate areas further and further away from schools, police stations and hospitals. I could go on and on, but I am sure that members from regional areas know full well what I am talking about with the additional challenges of being increasingly isolated from necessary infrastructure.
Apart from this, a great many cities around the world are looking to increase their urban density in tandem with expanding the capacity of their public transport systems, because there is a huge social benefit and also because they recognise that it is the key to addressing the two key challenges facing us this century—they, of course, being climate change and peak oil. Perth also has a third key restraint, which is that we are surrounded by areas of urban bushland, which, in many ways, Perth residents take for granted, but I know they also value it. This proximity to the bush makes Perth in many respects the envy of other cities in the world. I raised this in the briefing: in some ways I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem associated with expanding the urban passenger rail network out from the CBD. Is this increase in the rail network supposedly a key part of urban sustainability or is it helping to facilitate further sprawl? From the environmental and social perspective, further sprawl would probably be a bit of a perverse outcome, particularly as rail in itself is environmentally and socially desirable. We want rail but we do not necessarily want to see increasing expansion. It is a tricky issue, but it is still the case in Perth that the key reason people are comfortable living so far away from their jobs and from recreational pursuits is the number of cars that people own and the fact that running a car is still relatively inexpensive. However, I think it is unlikely that this will continue indefinitely. We need to recognise that as we move to a heavily carbon-constrained world and as we approach peak oil—although I must note, because I will get in trouble if I say otherwise, that some people will acknowledge that we are past the point of peak oil—if we make planning and transport decisions that place people a long way away from their workplace or recreation facilities, we will have to provide them with accessible public transport. At worst we are stranding them in the suburbs; at best we are lumbering them with major transport costs when they purchase these distant from the CBD blocks on the understanding that they are being offered affordable housing. We are seeing evidence emerge in countries like America of entire suburbs that have been abandoned due to the sheer unsustainability of their distance for residents. Of course we are nowhere near that stage yet, but let us make sure that we do not head down that path. Although this bill will at least ensure that the far northern suburbs will have rail, it could also be the case that the rail is creating those far-flung northern suburbs.
Turning to the specifics of the bill, the naming of the train stations we are considering here has been a bit of an exercise in confusion. I made a little mud map for myself to try to make sense of the history of the various name changes and the like. I will note my understanding and I am happy to take an interjection from the minister to tell me whether I have got it right or wrong, if that is okay.
Hon Simon O’Brien: With my pleasure!
The PRESIDENT: Steady!
Hon ALISON XAMON: There was once a station planned to be built five kilometres from Clarkson to be called Butler, and one that was planned to be built two and a half kilometres from Clarkson to be called Brighton.
Hon Ken Travers: Hence the name Butler to Brighton bill.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Yes, that is what seems to have led to the name of this bill. The originally named Butler station will be cancelled for now—I will come back to that in a moment—but may reappear later, at which time I understand it will be called Nowergup. The station referred to as Brighton as recently as 24 October last year is now to be called Butler. I understand it should probably have been called that to start with, given that it is to be built in the suburb of Butler and at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and proposed Butler boulevard. Is that correct? Do I have that right, or have I just made that even more confusing?
Hon Simon O’Brien: No; it is pretty straight up.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I have it noted as being situated at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and proposed Butler boulevard. As I said, there has been a bit of unfortunate toing and froing with the planning for this part of the urban passenger rail network. I note that the second reading speech went into a fair bit of detail on that. I will not retrace that now. What the second reading speech did not outline was the politics that led to this bill. Importantly, we understand that it was Labor’s promise to build a station five kilometres north of Clarkson by the end of this year, and another one two and a half kilometres north by 2014. But we understand that when LandCorp and its joint venturers subdivided the suburb of Butler, the blocks were relatively small and the target residents were both first home buyers and those in state housing. The people who bought lots there were told that there would be a station five kilometres north of Clarkson and later a station two and a half kilometres north. It is reasonable for the broader community to expect that people on low incomes living in such places, in particular those in public housing, will have reasonable access to public transport. However, I suspect that a few years from now—because, of course, I will be re-elected!—I will be in this place discussing a future government’s intention to build the station at Nowergup. I hope at that future stage I am not speaking about how we could have saved a lot of hassle and taxpayers’ money by building that extra station at the time we built Butler station.
I described Clarkson railway station as being an unexpected success. However, as I said, we continually find that a number of stations end up attracting more people than was expected. I therefore think that we should expect to find a higher attendance at Butler, because attendance at Clarkson is turning out to be not unexpected at all. I believe the attendance will become even higher as petrol prices and costs such as parking continue to rise. These factors suggest to me that in building an extension to the rail line, we should put in more stations than current passenger numbers suggest are viable because we should expect that they soon will be higher. Planning for growth would allow for only one lot of disturbance associated with the line and station construction, and surely that would save taxpayers more money in the long run as well as provide necessary transport services now.
I would like more detail today about how much money the government expects to save by deleting the station formerly known as Butler. I am expecting the minister to respond to that in his reply. I note that in the other place the member for Mindarie was bandying around the figure of $25 million. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Transport said at the time that it was not right. He gave an explanation that was less than convincing. I would like the minister, either in his response to the second reading debate or in the Committee of the Whole stage, to outline whether there will be a more expensive bus service for the new Butler-near-Brighton station that will partly offset the savings associated with not having the Butler-now-Nowergup station.
The goal is to have as many people as possible feeding into train stations by foot and on public transport. Surely, as Hon Ken Travers mentioned in his second reading speech, the government should be looking at having the stations on the northern line closer together, similar to the density of the stations on the Fremantle and Midland lines.
Hon Ken Travers: I did not suggest having the stations any closer together, because that actually decreases the efficiency of the line. I was talking about having greater density around the stations.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I beg your pardon, Hon Ken Travers. I thank the member for clarifying that. I misunderstood what he said.
I do know that Hon Giz Watson’s many, many supporters in the northern suburbs would be very keen to clearly understand the state government’s position on both its short-term and long-term public transport options. They will certainly be interested in that next time we go to the polls.
I conclude by making a similar point to the one that was bandied around in the other place; that is, that this bill is delivering only 2.5 kilometres more rail than the Australian Labor Party said it would deliver before the next election if it were in government.
I am not convinced that overall the government has been a great friend of rail transport. Although this bill is a positive for rail, which is the reason we are supporting it, it is really only a small fraction of the commitment to rail that this city needs. I have said many times in this house that the Greens live in hope and will continue to push for and, hopefully, get a great deal more rail and light rail solutions for Perth. As I said at the beginning of my speech, sections of our main roads are becoming congested. As more roads are constructed, those roads simply become congested, usually within a five-year period. Rail is a huge part of that solution. It is more economical and environmentally friendly. It is a more enjoyable way to travel around the Perth metropolitan area.
I am looking forward to the next rail bill, which I hope will deliver improved rail services to the East Metropolitan Region, irrespective of whether that will be an expanded Midland line; the Ellenbrook extension; an extension to Byford; a line through the north east corridor, through West Swan; or a light rail link between the Midland and Armadale lines. The population is concentrated around these areas and they need rail. We should not be putting in large-scale infrastructure simply to appeal to developers and expand the metropolitan boundaries even further. We need to make a serious and concerted commitment to those people and communities already living on the existing fringes