Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland) (12:24):I lead for the Labor Opposition in debate on the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails) Bill 2022. I say from the outset that Labor supports the bill. I note that we will move amendments that have been negotiated with the Government and crossbench members, and I note that the Government may be moving its own amendments in response to some valid concerns that were raised in the other place last night. I am honoured to lead debate on the bill because NSW Labor has given longstanding support for rail trails—as long as they remain in public hands—as a measure to facilitate future use. The assumption that such corridors will been used again in the future—which has happened—is a key principle, because we have a strong commitment to regional transport. With respect to the Minister, I must say that for people who live in regional communities, regional transport is not a red herring. It is something that we take very, very seriously.

I acknowledge from the outset the strength of Labor's long-term commitment across the breadth of that issue from my colleagues, including the Hon. Mick Veitch, MLC, who proposed similar legislation in the other place in 2014; the Hon. John Graham, who led for Labor in debate on the bill in the other place; the shadow Minister for Transport; the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty and shadow Minister for Jobs, Investment and Tourism; and the member for Lismore. I come to this debate as someone who has had the enormous privilege in my life to have worked as a tourism operator and to have travelled on many modern and heritage rail trails and railways across Australia and around the world for both tourism and transport purposes. I was part of a business that successfully pushed for the reopening of the Walcha Road station in New England back in the 1990s.

Members might not believe it now, but I used to lead bushwalking tours across a variety of tracks and trails around New South Wales and Australia as a tour guide, particularly around New England and the Northern Rivers. When I was shadow Minister for Primary Industries and shadow Minister for Investment and Tourism, the Tumbarumba to Rosewood (Riverina Highlands) Rail Trail was opened in 2020 and the Transport Administration Amendment (Closure of Railway Lines in Northern Rivers) Bill was passed through this Parliament. I have also recently spent time consulting on the current bill, particularly with communities in New England, the Northern Tablelands and the Northern Rivers; the Rail, Tram and Bus Union; and proponents of the bill, including Rail Trails NSW and the Newcastle Cycleways Movement. I received 130 email submissions on the bill with a wide variety of views, and my office has received many, many calls, so I come to this legislation from a number of perspectives.

While I see the health, environmental and economic benefits of developing rail trails, I also see the benefits of other potential uses of those corridors for other activities, such as heritage rail and other immersive tourism activities, reactivation for freight and/or transport purposes, and even the opportunity to improve level crossing safety. With that said, and while Labor supports the bill, the Government has come late to this. It would have been quite a different bill if it had come from this side of the Chamber, because we have a holistic view of the power of public transport as a social determinant of health, education, economic opportunity, jobs and regional development. The 2,000-odd kilometres of disused rail corridors in our State are, and should be, part of strategic passenger and freight transport plans, particularly in regions where transport and road networks have been under so much pressure, and particularly in recent years with increased population growth in our regions and damage from natural disasters.

One of the issues we have had in our State is over a decade of inaction on harnessing the power of those disused corridors for any public good, including rail trails. Heritage rail trails, level crossing removals and safety improvements have gone ahead in other States across our nation at pace, while in New South Wales we have only opened six tracks fully or partially, with less than 150 kilometres of rail trails. New South Wales is seen as lagging behind other States such as Victoria, which has 23 rail trails covering about 930 kilometres, or Queensland, which has 22 open or partially open rail trails covering over 400 kilometres. Recently, in April 2020, the Tumbarumba to Rosewood Rail Trail opened in New South Wales. It runs for 21 kilometres through the Snowy Valleys local government area. The Northern Rivers Rail Trail is under development, and will potentially run for 130 kilometres through a number of local government areas.

A further 10 rail trails are proposed by various community groups and councils across 14 local government areas. There are also other proposals that have nothing to do with rail trails. Rail heritage or freight transport could use disused rail corridors in New South Wales for a variety of purposes. Some of those worthy projects have been talked about in communities for decades without any movement on them because it is hard to bring any to fruition. This bill is not the first attempt to change the process for utilising disused rail corridors for the public good. As I said, former Labor member the Hon. David Campbell made an attempt in 2009 and the Hon. Mick Veitch introduced a bill in 2014. There have been many attempts to bring these projects forward.

The lack of progress on using disused rail corridors appropriately has, in my view, led to a widening of the distance between proponents of rail trails and proponents of other worthy proposals—farmers, cyclists, bushwalkers, Aboriginal communities, heritage rail enthusiasts and public freight transport advocates. Nothing has happened, and it is left up to the community. In the discussions I have had I have, frankly, been saddened by the way that some people speak about other groups and the mistrust and division that arises at times in this debate. It does not have to be this way and it should not be this way. There is no one-size-fits-all proposal that works for all disused rail corridors. Not every disused rail corridor will become a rail trail. The idea of removing viable rail infrastructure in some areas and dashing regional transport aspirations in communities that suffer from transport poverty, as well as the lack of a clear pathway for other potential rail corridor users to put forward alternative proposals, has led to this conflict.

That is understandable, but when we consider the jobs, economic and tourism aspirations of regional communities and the benefits that rail trails bring we know that we must come to a balanced view—and that balance will be different for each community. According to theRail Trails for NSW Evaluation Summary, there is evidence that the Tumbarumba to Rosewood rail trail has made a positive contribution to the economies of Tumbarumba and New South Wales. The report contains a number of early indicators of positive economic outcomes, which I invite people to examine. The bill's title is perhaps more inclusive of the transport needs and rail aspirations of regional communities so that we do not see one stakeholder group raised above all others in this complex area of land use, land management, land ownership and planning. To some extent, this is why changing the mechanism for how these projects are proposed, discussed and debated in our communities is so important.

Currently, in order to make any changes—including to rail trails—the Transport Administration Act 1988 requires authorisation by an Act of Parliament to close a rail line. Closure occurs when the land is sold or otherwise disposed of, or the railway tracks and other works concerned are removed. The requirement for an Act has been a significant barrier to many proposals that have proved successful in other States and overseas in tourism activation. There is just no clear path. The bill inserts new section 99A, which states:

For the purposes of this section, a railway line is not closed, if in accordance with regulations made under 99E—

(a)railway tracks or other works are removed from the railway line, or

(b)a railway infrastructure owner leases the land on which the railway line is located to a council or joint organisation.

The legislation allows for a much broader range of uses for the land than just rail trails. These include recreation, tourism or related purposes, or roads or road infrastructure. The bill proposes an alternative process for utilising disused rail corridors rather than just closing them and putting it to a vote. While this is largely a semantic and symbolic concept, it is important.

I will give an overview of the process. TheNSW Rail Trails Framework was developed earlier this year, in June, by the Department of Regional NSW with three clear criteria: demonstrated community support, evidence of a viable business model and addressing of potential environmental impacts. Once these criteria are met, the Minister for Regional Transport and Roads will make a regulation. Such a regulation can be disallowed by either House of Parliament. The corridor then remains in public hands. The lease of such land for the purpose has a 30‑year term, which might be renewed. But if the lease is not renewed the lessee will have to "make good". Such a lease may be held only by a local council, although it can sublease the project. There is no penalty to government for cancelling the lease where there is a public transport use.

Under this legislation, in effect, there is minimal practical change to the capacity of the Government to alter the use of a disused rail corridor. Under the current regime, the Minister only has to have the numbers in this place—which is easy when they are in government. The change then has to navigate the Legislative Council. There is no requirement for a strategic framework for any consultation; it can just be the flick of a Minister's pen through legislation. The bill calls for strategic policy development and opponents can move for a disallowance. However, to give this power to the Minister to make regulations we must adhere to some key principles. The first of these key principles is central to NSW Labor's policy on rail trails—that is, the rail corridor will remain in public hands.

The second key principle is biosecurity risk mitigation. Biosecurity concerns are not mentioned in the strategic framework developed by the Department of Regional NSW, nor in the legislation and there is no reference to Local Land Services. This is of concern in the current climate, with multiple significant threats to biosecurity in New South Wales. I note that the Federal Labor Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Murray Watt, released the National Biosecurity Strategy just yesterday. We on this side of the House take biosecurity issues very seriously. We know that there must be strategic focus on biosecurity because one small mite on a bee has a massive impact on our bee industry. We must deal strategically with foot and mouth and other threats. I am surprised by this omission because during the second reading speech on the Transport Administration Amendment (Closures of Railway Lines in Northern Rivers) Bill 2020 the then Minister said that a specific 2019 Biosecurity Risk Management Plan had been prepared by New South Wales Local Land Services to manage both current and potential future risks.

The plan employs several mitigation and management strategies to address potential risks of contact between animals and trail users, and trail users and neighbouring farms. These include appropriate public signage, warnings about trespass and biosecurity obligations, private farm biosecurity signs, and farm visitor notices and directions. I cannot understand what has changed between then and now. It is odd that such a requirement is not included in the strategy. It is also concerning to me that NSW Farmers—a key agriculture stakeholder with real and growing concerns in the biosecurity space, particularly in the current environment—has not had formal consultation with the Government on the bill. It previously expressed concerns about farmers being lumped with ongoing maintenance costs for rail trails on their properties due to health and safety risks, potential for land‑use conflicts, fire and flood management, and methods for consulting with adjoining landholders.

I do not hold with the view expressed last night by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party that we just say no, but I think we need to include primary producers in formal regulation at some level. That is why we will seek to move an amendment to the bill, which we will get to later. The rights of Aboriginal native title claimants must be guaranteed and I am pleased to see a clear pathway for consultation through this process. However, I think a statutory review after five years would enable us all to have a sense of certainty that the regulations are operating as anticipated. For too long the rights of First Nations people in this country have been overrun by people who think they are doing the right thing. It is important we are clear on this point.

I turn briefly to level crossing safety, which I understand could be seen as tangential to the bill but is a significant issue in regional communities. It is Rail Safety Week and I particularly acknowledge and thank Maddie Bott, an advocate who lost her fiancé, Ethan Hunter, and his colleague Mark Fenton on the Eurabba rail line in February last year. Yesterday Maddie addressed the National Level Crossing Safety Forum organised by TrackSAFE, and I thank her for the enormous courage she continues to display in the face of her tragic loss. Last year when I visited the site of the accident with Maddie and Ethan's mum, Angela, I noticed the inconsistent marking of active and disused rail crossings around the area where Ethan lost his life—even on public roads. It was sometimes impossible to know whether one was were crossing an active line where a train might be or a rail corridor that had not been used for 20 years. This can definitely lead to errors in judgement, confusion and, in some tragic circumstances, accidents and fatalities such as we have seen.

If we can improve level crossing safety simply by addressing the interface between roads and disused rail lines and ensuring lines are modified not closed, that would be a very good outcome. Another key principle—and this is very important—is the need to ensure future access for public passenger or freight transport. Transport is a major social determinant of health, jobs, education and economic opportunity. While COVID has increased the move toward remote teleworking, telehealth and tele‑education, there are still real barriers to people living in regional areas accessing quality health care, education and jobs. Centralisation of health and education services, and the current increase in people moving to regional areas with an expectation of higher levels of public transport than currently exist there, puts more pressure on regional transport networks. Regional communities are experiencing increasing transport poverty. They have aspirations for a return to regional rail networks and the desire to link in with major infrastructure projects, such as the Inland Rail.

While Labor acknowledges that it is unrealistic to expect that all 2,000 kilometres of currently unused rail lines would return to passenger or freight transport in the short‑ to medium‑term—or even in the long-term in some cases—there is a need to ensure that existing rail corridors which could provide alternatives are not sterilised by removing access to small sections of the track for other purposes. Consulting with only one council means that surrounding communities could find themselves isolated and unable to reactivate corridors necessary for them to have good public transport options for economic growth and development. I note that the Government talked about consultation along the line, but Labor also wants transport consultation adjacent to the line for the communities on either side.

Time and again governments have put significant infrastructure in one area, which then creates pressure on public transport or road networks in other areas, and it is put down to unintended consequences. It would be nice to get rid of some of those. Without having proper consultation in place, the compensation clause in the bill creates a sovereign risk for investors in rail trails and associated tourism infrastructure, which could be mitigated by ensuring that surrounding councils have been included and considered in the context of the rail trail proposal. There is no clear pathway for these reactivations, and that is what this is all about. Another principle is the risk of non‑rail trail use of the lines. It is important to note that the legislation allows for the Minister to make regulations for tourism purposes other than rail trails.

As a former tourism operator, I believe that is really positive. But theNSW Rail Trails Framework makes specific mention of tourism and commercial development within the rail trail corridor that will complement rail trail use. Given the Transport Asset Holding Entity had secret plans, revealed by Labor, to sell, rezone and develop land across Sydney railways, and that TAHE will retain the ownership of the lines, Labor asks the Government to ensure that the legislation does not open the way for a similar situation to occur in regional, rural or remote New South Wales. While it might be easy to undo a rail trail to restore a rail corridor, particularly if there is complementary use, it is harder to undo a hotel, a coffee shop or other buildings that might constitute tourism and commercial development within the rail trail corridor that will complement the use of the rail trail.

It is therefore important to insert the statutory requirement for a review within five years. It also speaks to the importance of the Greens amendment about the regulation of the sublease, which Labor collaborated on and supported in the other place. It ensures that not just the council or joint organisation [JO] that has the rail trail is regulated, but also the person who may have a sublease with them. That leads to the issue of funding needs. The bill is not accompanied by any funding from the New South Wales Government. Councils are going to have to find the funding either from their own budgets or from private operators through subleasing arrangements. That is why Labor agreed with the Greens amendments in the other place.

It is useful, after all of the consultation processes have happened and people know what the specific proposal is going to look like, that we give the Minister the power to regulate not just the lease with the council or the JO but also the subleases, where it is indicated that they will happen. That is an important check for communities to ensure that subleasing arrangements do not undermine the key principles I have outlined today. Finally, I will talk about the strategic framework, which I believe could be strengthened. Listening to the debate in the upper House yesterday, it was clear that all parties agreed that there need to be strong business cases and strong community support for activities to be undertaken under regulation. In fact, achieving that is the whole point of the legislation before the House. In my view, the consultative and collaborative approach by the Government and crossbench with the Opposition has helped to achieve that.

In the spirit of such collaboration, it is Labor's view that the Minister must be clear about that support well before it gets to the regulatory stage. I humbly suggest that the Government consider adding the following criteria to its framework: that Aboriginal landholders must be consulted; that strategic regional freight and passenger transport plans for the area should be developed; and that biosecurity risk mitigation plans should be looked at.

Debate interrupted.

Ms JENNY AITCHISON (Maitland) (16:24): Before I was so rudely interrupted by all the parliamentary business, I was talking about the biosecurity risk mitigation in my contribution to debate on the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails) Bill 2022. The biosecurity concerns are not mentioned as a separate criterion; they are part of the environmental framework and are not at all in the legislation. That was my concern, and it is something that Labor wants to see the legislation address.

I sincerely thank those people with whom we consulted on the bill. While the Government's consultation on the bill was better than it had been on many other pieces of legislation that I have dealt with this in this House, it was still somewhat lacking. I hope that the Department of Regional NSW takes that into consideration in the future, particularly in the regional areas that are most impacted by this. I have already spoken about the lack of formal consultation with New South Wales farmers, but I will also speak about the Country Women's Association, the largest women's membership-based organisation in Australia. It has great networks in our region, and it has been around for 100 years. Health, education, economic prosperity, tourism, regional transport and all those things are key issues for women in our regions, and it is a shame that they were not formally included in that consultation process. That is something the Government should be looking at.

That said, I appreciate the consultative approach to MPs by the two Government Ministers involved in the legislation: the Hon. Sam Farraway from the other place; and the Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Cities, and Minister for Active Transport. I pay a special thank you to their advisers—Nat Openshaw, Estelle Grech and Simon Hanna—and thank them for reaching out to Alex Claassens from the Rail, Tram and Bus Union [RTBU], as Alex holds such a wealth of knowledge about our State rail network. I also appreciate the consultation opportunity we had with Ms Abigail Boyd from the other place and her adviser, Angus Hoy, to work through the amendments.

I also thank the member for Lismore, Janelle Saffin who, despite the devastating floods in her region, took the time to open up her office so we could consult with her community on these issues. They have been through a hard time up there, but the way she opened her office and spoke with stakeholders really helped to inform our position on the bill. I also thank the member for Northern Tablelands—I spoke to him about the bill as there are a lot of contested areas. I make special mention of the Armidale Regional Council, in particular, Debra O'Brien, who pulled together a meeting for me with a range of community groups that were concerned and they were all very instrumental.

I have already mentioned Maddie Bott. I had a great conversation with NSW Rail Trails and Cycleways of Newcastle, whom I have met with before. I also thank Northern Rivers Railway Action group, the Armidale Regional Ratepayers Association, the Northern Rail Defenders Forum, the New England Railway Inc, Station House Armidale, Save the Great Northern Rail Line Group, and Tenterfield Heritage Rail Organisation. I also thank the 130 or so people who wrote emails to me and the many people who called my office about this topic and reached out to other members in this Parliament. I want to reassure them all that their feedback has been very helpful in reaching our position on the bill. It showed me why the bill is necessary and why we must get to and just do it. These decisions should be made in the interests of the local and regional communities in which the subject land is located. That is where the conflict exists potentially, and that is where it should be decided and discussed.

What Labor tried to do in its approach is not to make that a narrow focus on the rail line but to include surrounding regions to ensure that people are not left out, because that is where the rubber hits the road. Up until now this has been pretty much a political process. Even if it has not always been political in this place, it has been a political tool in those regional areas, and it is based on the numbers in our House and in the other place. This bill is about empowering communities to develop their own strategic land management use for this important public asset—disused rail corridors. We have worked together in this process as a Parliament to provide the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the future aspirations of regional communities are not overcome by single stakeholder ideas and also to ensure that there is a clear and open process for consultation.

I conclude by speaking on the review of the legislation, which is one of our proposed amendments and which I think is really important. We have all come to the bill with good intentions, and we must make sure that those intentions are activated in the way that the legislation comes through. That is why I thank the Government for being so open to our amendments and for allowing us to have those discussions in such a positive and proactive way.