Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

ABT RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT BILL 1999 (No. 49)

Second Reading

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Minister for State Development - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, it was over 100 years ago that the Tasmanian Parliament first considered a proposal to construct a railway from Queenstown to a sea port on the west coast of the State. It is difficult for us here today to appreciate the thoughts that were going through the minds of the elected representatives so long ago. But one thing is for sure, those elected representatives were thinking about what the construction of a railway in that part of the State would do to expand development and create jobs and wealth for Tasmania. I am sure that all members of this House have a similar perspective today, particularly given that Tasmania needs more infrastructure to maximise its potential.

It is interesting to note that the proposal to construct the first railway on the west coast came from the private sector and in those days, the private sector undertook the process of drafting the bill that the Parliament actually considered. It is also interesting to note that many aspects of the proposal of the promoters, the Mount Lyell Mining Company, were considered at some length by special parliamentary select committees.

I can inform the House that one aspect of particular interest to committee members back in 1894 was the issue of employment of Tasmanians; another was the safety of people involved in construction and use of the railway. Mr Speaker, these are issues in which this Government has vital interest some 100 years later. I should also point out that the Government of the day decided it had to take some measured risks to create employment and develop the State.

Our forefathers, sitting in the House of Assembly, had to consider whether to authorise the use of the Abt Railway system and also whether to guarantee loans for the construction of the railway. This was a big step in those days, given that the Abt system had not been seen by any person proposing its use in Tasmania. It was only in use in a few countries, being a recent invention, and the only information available was from, and I quote from the evidence to the select committee in 1893, 'engineering literature'.

It is hard to imagine in these days of almost instant access to information via the Internet from all parts of the world what it was like in those days for members assessing whether to assist the Abt Railway project. In any event, it was the view of the Parliament of the day that a railway from Queenstown to the coast should be facilitated and a special act was passed for this to occur.

The original piece of legislation was called the Mount Lyell and Strahan Railway Act and it was passed in December 1892. It was however subsequently amended. One amendment was to accommodate the use of the now famous Abt propulsion system. It was also amended to extend the construction through to Strahan. But, Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note that the primary concern at the time was that the railway be constructed in such a manner that it would do the job.

The original act required the submission of detailed plans and for detailed inspections by government inspectors during the course of construction. Whilst this is to be expected, in one sense the need for this requirement comes into stark reality when the terrain of the railway route is observed and the construction conditions - particularly in winter - are considered. Mr Speaker, it was the workers on the railway that built it and in so doing, achieved one of the most significant engineering feats of the day.

It is of course appropriate that this House acknowledge the great skills of the engineers, surveyors and other professionals of the day, particularly Mr Carus Driffield who worked on the railway. But whilst it is often the case that the professionals receive credit for great engineering and other works like the Abt Railway or Tasmania's large Hydro dams, we must not forget the workers who also made a massive contribution. The labour for the original project came from the Mount Lyell Company and other contractors and their efforts, particularly in the large cuttings and the bridge works, are a testament to the capacities of those men.

Mr Speaker, sadly in one respect for Tasmania, the Mount Lyell Company decided to close the railway in 1963. The reason I say 'sadly in one respect', is because it was the emergence of other more efficient and cost-effective transport alternatives that were the primary reasons for the loss of viability of the railway and we all know how critical good transport links are to the ongoing development of Tasmania's west coast.

There have been many Tasmanians who had a vision that one day an Abt steam locomotive would again travel along the original railway alignment. Many Tasmanians shared the dream and there have been a number of calls in this intervening period for the Abt Railway to be reconstructed.

Mr Speaker, at this point I would like to single out one person - as it happens, an employee of the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. It has been, in the view of many, the extensive and painstaking documentation of the results of many thousands of hours of research into the west coast railway and its role in the development of the west coast by Mr Lou Rae that has greatly assisted the cause of reinstatement of the Abt Railway. With pictures, with stories and with detailed records, the history of the railway has been unveiled - to show the richness of the wilderness and of the heritage of Tasmania's west coast. Mr Speaker, anyone presented with that vision cannot help but become excited about what a recreated Abt Railway could do in the new century for the west coast.

Of course the situation has changed over the last 100 years. The railway would not be reinstated to perform its original function of transporting ores and other industrial uses. It would instead be to create a world-class heritage/wilderness tourist railway. It was this perspective which was pursued by a number of forward-looking Tasmanians, including Mr Vic Crocker and Mr Roger Smith. With the prospect of Commonwealth government funding being available, a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Dr Neil Otway to examine all relevant issues.

Mr Speaker, at this point I want to acknowledge the commitment of the former Government to taking this action. In so doing, I also want to clearly indicate that the efforts of the previous Government were strongly supported by the ALP then in opposition.

I think the Abt Railway project is one which has great benefits for the State and I think it is worthy of the support of all Tasmania's political representatives, and the community at large. The efforts of that committee and others were rewarded with the Prime Minister earmarking $20.45 million for the Abt Railway project. Mr Speaker, it is only appropriate that this contribution by the Federal Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular be warmly acknowledged. More than most federation projects that the Commonwealth Government will assist, this project, having very close linkages to 100 years ago, and to be completed in the anniversary of federation year, has a particular federation significance.

Mr Speaker, as noted earlier, legislation to facilitate the Abt Railway over 100 years ago was primarily concerned with construction standards. A century later, construction standards are appropriately set out in Australian Standards and other recognised documents. Today it is environmental consequences and planning issues which have, very appropriately, a much stronger influence on new development projects. In accordance with the legislative requirements, there has been a very rigorous assessment of not only the environmental and planning issues, but also the heritage dimensions of the proposal to reconstruct the Abt Railway. To some, this has been seen as unnecessary when a railway was still operating about 36 years ago.

However, as the various assessments have proceeded, it has become apparent to most that the examination of a range of issues was both necessary and desirable. For instance, Mr Speaker, it is important that there was an understanding of the Aboriginal cultural heritage of the area; there was a need to re-examine safety issues from a recent geotechnical perspective; there was a need to explore in detail the heritage issues; and it was necessary to ensure that the environment would not be adversely affected. But most importantly, it was necessary, in the Government's view, that the development of the new Abt Railway occur with the maximum amount of input from the west coast community. It will be a hallmark of my Government that, where possible, major development projects and new policies are developed in partnership with the affected communities. This approach is to be preferred to governments making decisions and imposing them on communities.

Mr Speaker, in progression of the Abt Railway project, this Government right from the start set about involving the relevant stakeholders with a view to cooperation on the redevelopment. The West Coast Council obviously is a major body affected by the Abt Railway proposal and right from the start there were discussions with the council and I think it is appropriate that the commitment from the West Coast Council in general and the mayor, Mr Murray Waller, in particular, to development of the Abt project be acknowledged. This commitment by the council has resulted in formal agreements to progress the Abt project as a partnership - another example of this Government forging partnerships with the local council for the greater good of the council area and the State. This partnership approach has been extended in this case to also involve the Tasmanian Heritage Council, the Commonwealth Government and the Board of Environmental Management and Control.

This willingness to work together on the Abt project, Mr Speaker, extends beyond those organisations with a formal responsibility. I can inform the House that many individuals have already contributed to the progression of this project, and will continue to do so in the years to come and I think this is in part because Tasmanians in general are excited about this project. There seems to be a deep-rooted interest across all areas of Tasmania in seeing the Abt Railway run again. This was clearly evident in a major study the Government commissioned about tourism dimensions of the Abt Railway project. This independent study demonstrated the deep interest of Tasmanians and that has been echoed from discussions I have had with many Tasmanians over recent months.

It is worthwhile, I think Mr Speaker, quoting a paragraph from the executive summary of this tourism report. It said, and I quote: 'The railway will increase access to wilderness and natural beauty but it will also offer significant opportunities for history and heritage experiences. Such experiences are of interest both to Tasmanians and visitors to Tasmania.'

I want to return to the consultation that has become a critical element of the development of this Abt project. There have been many public meetings, many facilitated by the West Coast Council, where issues to do with this project have been canvassed. Mr Speaker, I think it is this high level of consultation with the west coast community which had led to a high degree of support for the new development. As yet another episode in the consultation, an extensive summary of the project, the identified potential environmental impacts and possible management measures was prepared a few weeks ago. Many hundreds of this document were distributed and a slightly reduced form was distributed in the Western Herald to over 2 000 householders on the west coast. The overwhelming response is that people are very comfortable with the project.

This is not just an accident. It is a consequence of the extensive consultation that has occurred. It has also been assisted by the strong interest and support of the media in the State and particularly the local media. Radio station 7XS, the Western Herald and the Advocate , which all have local reporters, have been very helpful, as have media interests operating outside the west coast.

Mr Speaker, I also should acknowledge the part played by Sinclair Knight Merz, the consultants appointed to undertake the first phase of the development of the project. Its staff and the principal, Mr Bill Lawson, have put a great deal into ensuring that there is strong community support for this project.

Having provided a fair bit of background to the development of the project, I now turn to the specifics of the bill before the House. This bill is before this House for much the same reason as legislation was introduced in relation to the Abt Railway over 100 years ago. Put simply, it is before this House so that Parliament can consciously facilitate the development.

The Government has made no secret that it wants the Abt Railway running again as soon as possible. This project will bring many benefits to the State in general and the west coast region in particular.

Mr Speaker, for a start it will inject $20 million into this State's economy and that is good news because we all know a dollar spent has a flow-on effect. Secondly, it will create much needed jobs for Tasmanians, particularly on the west coast. And thirdly, it will add to the critical mass of tourist developments on the west coast and significantly benefit Tasmania's tourism industry. To bring these benefits about sooner rather than later is a clear objective of this Government, and one which is shared by the west coast community. A secondary aim of the bill is to strengthen the viability of the future operator of the railway and to simplify the arrangements for them.

There is now a short list of three operators for the railway and all of them, whilst very keen to be part of this exciting project, have indicated that there are risks inherent in the project and that margins will be very tight. They have therefore requested that, as it is essential that the operator be viable if the railway is to continue, a framework be put in place which will assist wherever possible. However Mr Speaker, I would wish to make it clear to the House that there is nothing in this bill which will inhibit the assessment processes for the development under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act nor does anything in this bill impede the proper consideration of a development application by the West Coast Council under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act.

Mr Speaker, this bill is basically self-explanatory. Part 1 contains the usual preliminaries. Part 2 establishes a corporate body to own the land and enter into contracts. But there is no staff nor accounts, it is in reality a minister of the Crown. Part 3 provides some machinery provisions to do such things as enable land to be acquired, local ballast to be used, vegetation to be pruned and damage to be fixed. Part 4 contains a number of miscellaneous matters to do with appointment of inspectors, rail safety, non-application of other legislation and the development of by-laws and regulations. Not surprisingly a number of these provisions are similar to those which were passed by this Parliament over 100 years ago.

Before closing, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the Hon John White who, as a member of the Legislative Council, chairs the Abt Railway steering committee. His direction has been instrumental in progressing the project to this stage over the last six months.

Mr Speaker, the provisions of this bill will assist in a speedy construction and sensible operating environment for the Abt Railway. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Mr HIDDING (Lyons) - Mr Speaker, I will be responding to the second reading speech on behalf of the Opposition.

Firstly might I just say that I seemed to have developed a little throat problem so I have a lozenge in my mouth as I speak and I will try not to allow it to interfere.

Mr Speaker, the history of this project is well known. The Premier has given a good thumbnail sketch of this history. It is indeed an exciting project and was for many years just a gleam in the eye and a faint hope for many people. More than a faint hope for some, such as Viv Crocker and his people on the Abt Railway Historical Society who actually, using some government schemes and what have you, cleared substantial sections of the track to keep it relatively easy to maintain rather than let it be completely overgrown.

Roger Smith as well, some fifteen years ago felt he got close to redeveloping Abt and never really gave the dream up and on a certain day he came to us and did enthuse us with his ongoing enthusiasm for this idea and one thing led to another. I was very pleased to be able, representing that area, to take a proposal to Cabinet that my colleagues supported me on eventually and the Rundle Government. There are naturally the political realities as precious little credit is given to the former Government for actually taking the brave step of firstly making about $20 000 available for some minor studies to get it off the ground and then in the very next budget to make $100 000 available to do some serious work on it.

It is there that it took off and it was there that the committee was formed under Dr Neil Otway and those studies were done and a spirit developed, everybody involved with the project realised that if the project could be done for around the $20 million then it was likely to be a prime candidate for a Centenary of Federation grant and to everybody's great credit eventually a project was put together that could be built for around that money.

I reject and continue to reject any assertions that the project cannot be done for that amount of money. There was a power of work done by very good people to prove that it could be done for that amount of money. A few months later to be running around and saying, 'I do not know how much we are going to do for the money', and incidentally I am aware that some people, too closely involved with the project, are actually saying this in the community, that it is not possible to do it for the money. I would say it is a pretty irresponsible thing to be doing when you have the projects out there for tender, for goodness' sake.

The fact is we expect bids from the pre-qualified tenderers to build a world-class facility, world-class rolling stock, a turnkey operation of a brilliant historical railway business for $20.45 million or thereabouts. Any suggestion that it should cost $25 million or $30 million is a nonsense and only comes from things such as breaking out of the original plan in the first place. Somebody was off on a tangent suggesting we should have concrete sleepers. Of course we should have concrete sleepers, that would be lovely, but gold-plated rail also would be very nice but it is just not possible.

Mr Llewellyn - Gold-plated railway.

Ms Putt - The price of gold's coming down.

Mr HIDDING - Well, as far as I am concerned it is just silly. The fact is you cannot afford it and if it means that you have to use sleepers and even some secondhand sleepers if they are in good condition - sure they need to be replaced earlier. But that ought to be, and it was proven to be by another study that not only would the project as a business wash its face commercially it would provide for ongoing maintenance and replacement of timber sleepers.

Now there we were, just a month or two after the new arrangement was in place with a managing consultant, that that proposal was out there. There have been a number of proposals since that there have been some concerns. I have only had one opportunity to express concerns about the project because the much-vaunted community consultation committee for the Abt has only met once.

Now if that is the form of this Government who promise a consultative arrangement -

Mrs Napier - Only once.

Mr HIDDING - Yes, it only met once. But of course, that same individual, that same member for -

Mrs Napier - Put a lot of press releases out.

Mr HIDDING - whatever he is the member for, the Honourable John White, also was given the federation job - remember?

Mrs Napier - How many times have they met?

Mr HIDDING - Zero. So he has form. He does not like consultation. Sounds good in the first place but we have had one meeting. I expressed some concerns and I think that we probably expressed enough concern about a number of things to scare the Indians to a degree and we have not heard too much about some of those things.

The bill that we are about to get into and discuss provides a management model that is particularly interesting - and my colleague on my left is going to speak on that in his contribution. It is an interesting model. I understand that the Premier has said, and he will say, that one of the best things about the management model that has just one minister in it is that it is efficient - it certainly is with only one person - and that it is cheap and that is important. That continues this idea that you have a tight rein on the finances of this project. But I would like to hear from the Premier how he thinks that as Premier of this State, minister for tourism and Minister for State Development, he is actually going to find time to be this one-person company.

It really is quite an executive decision to make and it is an entity that, when we were looking to all the potential entities - and we had in the end plumped for the Basslink development board model, which was quite small and efficient for a public infrastructure project, and that is a project that in fact had its genesis in Victoria where incidentally Dr Vertigan I think was the architect of it even and he is on one of his own type of models here. But that is the one we went for. I had never heard of a single-person corporation in this sense and it being the Premier of the State, I guess we would need to be convinced that this is the best way to go.

There are a number of issues in there. The acquisition and sale of land - we have some concerns about the acquisition of land. I would have thought with only a handful of people to actually deal with that we would have a situation at this late stage where there are essentially no problems left other than an argument over prices and what have you, and there is a process to deal with that. I would encourage the Government if there are any problems to get that over and done with fairly quickly and I think I have a colleague who is going to raise something on that.

There is the issue of the sale of land in this. This bill refers to the sale of land that has been acquired and does not suggest that you would sell any of the land that you would resume from the Forestry Corporation because I guess that is already crown land. Not having my mind around that completely, what I would like to say is that we always imagined that whoever you entered into a long-term lease with on the operation of that railway, the corridor that goes through the wilderness would never be sold, that that ought to remain crown land. I cannot imagine a situation where somebody would want to actually take ownership of the thing anyway but because of its nature and where it goes it is not something that ought to be sold off to a commercial operation. I would like to hear from the Premier whether he has that in mind with this motion. I suspect not, but it ought to be tidied up.

The issue of intellectual property - I do not seem to have the attention of the minister responsible so I do not know how he is actually going to respond to anything -

Mr Groom - Just wait. How about listening?

Mr Jim Bacon - I am listening.

Mr HIDDING - Are you - good.

The issue of intellectual property is an interesting concept and it is proper that the Government capture the rights to what it ought to have the rights to, which is the name of the railway itself because that is the intellectual property you carry into a deal; whoever you deal with will want to know that they have control over the marketing of their own railway, that nobody else can set up somewhere else, on private property for instance, and call themselves some sort of railway that might have them hanging out there causing a problem.
I will say this: there is evidence around the world where governments have gone into arrangements such as this to develop historic railways for instance where there are trusts involved or whatever entity was sought, that the amateur body that always seems to be at the genesis of these things can be something that can be not a problem but can develop into a problem if the Government or the controlling body does not actually enter into good arrangements with that amateur body and ensure that they have some sort of key role in the ongoing life of the thing.

There is an historic railway in Wales, where there are many, that was finished I believe about five years ago. It has never had a tourist in it, never been opened, the locomotives never run because of exactly such a thing. The historical society has got writs against the Government on it and it has never ever run. So let us be aware that there is a possibility to fall out with people on certain things like this and it ought not to happen and I know that the Government has been having substantial consultation.

I wonder is the Premier aware, while he is seeking in this bill to limit the use of the word 'Abt Railway' for instance to the Government and then to move on to the new operator, whether he is aware that he has the Abt Railway Society in a $1.2 million fund-raising effort, using intellectual property of the railway? Can the Premier tell us what they intend using that money for? Will they help with the construction of the rail? Can they help with the reconstruction of the locos? What is the idea of this $1.2 million? I mean, here you are locking up the name for yourself and here we have in the paper today, the Abt Railway Society, selling sleepers to members of the public for $25 each. You will get your name on a sleeper for $25. I think it is a good idea.

Good on you, Norman Bradshaw and the lads. In today's Advocate - there seems to be a little consternation over there so I will read this from today's Advocate :

'The Mount Lyell Abt Railway Society has given the public an opportunity to have their names engraved on sections of the restored Abt Wilderness Railway. Society chairman Norm Bradshaw said the society had 47,000 rail sleepers available to the public at $25 each -'

Mr Green - Don't lie down over there, they might pull you in.

Mr HIDDING - We will have the Bryan Green stretch of 100 sleepers - I am sure you will donate substantially to that - and we will have the Ken Bacon 1 000 sleepers because it is his electorate -

Mr Jim Bacon - Pretty obviously we're going to get 1 000 off you too.

Mr Green - A small something out of you, Rene.

Dr Madill - Rene land too.

Mr HIDDING - I will have a couple. What I am saying is that these arrangements need to be put in place and the relationships managed properly so that everything works towards the greater good of the project. Everybody must be project focused and breakouts along the way can only cause problems.

This Government, Mr Speaker, we believe is charged with - they inherited the Abt Railway project, they inherited a $20.45 million commitment from the Federal Government. They have done a good job on this to date. We have had some reservations about the timing and speed and some decision-making, they have been - we have not gone out and said any such thing, they have been apolitical on this, they have in fact been quite truthful and open in the second reading speech about the previous Government's involvement. There was one breakout, however, that the Premier felt constrained to make shortly after he had become Premier, he felt he had to distance himself just a little bit on the west coast from Rene Hidding and the boys, so went around bagging this idea that Rene Hidding said, 'Oh, we need Disneyland down here to run it'.

Mr JIM BACON - Point of order, Mr Speaker. I never said anything like that on the west coast to anyone, ever.

Mr HIDDING - All right, I will withdraw that. I had been told that the Premier had said that it is a bad thing that we were looking around the world for operators and it would be - what we want are Tasmanian operators. We never said we did not want Tasmanian operators. One thing we always said - and I will say it again now, and this is what we intended to do and I charge you with the same responsibility - was that we want a world-class tourism facility in every way and we want a world-class operator. There is no point having a world-class tourism facility if you have an operator that does not have the money for marketing, does not have the money to withstand the lean times in order to be very, very good in the good times. This project is too important to Tasmanians to not have world-class operators. I am delighted to see that both in construction and in the operation, in the bag, we have some excellent Tasmanian talent in there and that is very, very heartening.

The design that eventually is put forward by - well, there will be three designs come forward so the pre-qualified tender is still standing, that when they come forward if they are not good enough, if it is not world-class, then they ought to be asked to go back to the drawing board and do it again so that it is world class. If there are any corners cut because somebody feels there ought to be concrete sleepers, for whatever strange reason, or if somebody feels that the Quarter Mile Bridge ought not to be rebuilt at all because we should take the other route along the virgin bush on the other side of the river and therefore that adds to the cost and what have you then I just hope that the Government does not accept the best offer and get on with it. It has to be a world-class development. It has to be a rebuilding of the Abt Railway as it last stood, but we always recognise that in order to keep costs down everybody needs to be a tad pragmatic in some areas.

Mr Jim Bacon - It's not just construction costs either, it's ongoing maintenance costs which originally caused the thing to close in the first place. That's part of the consideration.

Mr HIDDING - Sure, sure, construction is one thing. You need to probably explain to us who is going to be responsible for the maintenance afterwards. Does the operator assume that, during the period of his lease, that he gets it in good order and hands it back in as good order? That is the way we saw it.

Mr Jim Bacon - Certainly.

Mr HIDDING - The original SKM -

Mr Cheek - It would want to be a cheap lease.

Mr HIDDING - That is not true.

Mr Cheek - A dollar a year.

Mr HIDDING - The AFL stadium lives.

Mr Jim Bacon - I don't think it's going to be a big dividend, Bob.

Mr HIDDING - Bob has been down to the Abt Railway with us and loves it.

Mr Cheek - I'm the only one that's actually been right through.

Mr HIDDING - That is right.

The original SKM report on the business side of it actually plugged in a healthy amount of maintenance, recognising timber sleepers and what have you, and notwithstanding the fact that we plugged in pretty low numbers it proved that it could in fact produce a commercial margin and replace its infrastructure along the way. But it has got to be on the original route and I should not have to say this but we want it to be from Queenstown to Strahan. It was not long after the manager-consultant had been selected that he said somewhere publicly, 'There'll only be enough money to go to Teepookana'. Now we have people around the State saying, 'Is this thing only to go to Teepookana?' It is Queenstown to Strahan and it is actually to Regatta Point, not to Strahan because that is another issue on the west coast, 'Does it go all away around to the village?' No, it is Teepookana to where the rail head is and was and it is the original route. If there have to be some pragmatic deviations in order to save $1 million or $500 000 or whatever along the way then I am beastly careless about that as long as it does not detract from the general integrity of the product. And I understand there is still concern over the quarter-mile bridge. Yes, it is an historic thing, the quarter mile, people remember it fondly and the big A-frame thing that hundreds of workers put in there 100 years ago. It is a wonderful thing. It is a thing of beauty - twisted metal hanging into the water and all the rest of it.

If the Heritage Commission wants it there for people to look at and admire and ooh and aah, let us build a bridge alongside it, exactly alongside it so people can look at of the train window and admire it. But let us not be suckered into actually rebuilding a bridge, having to rebuild a bridge that is identical to the quarter mile back then. That is something that there is not enough money for -

Mr Jim Bacon - I think you've contradicted what you said five minutes ago.

Mr HIDDING - No, I said the design has to be faithful but it has to be pragmatic. What I said five minutes ago was that I want there to be a quarter-mile bridge. I am not sure if you are aware, Premier, but there was a large body of opinion, including a management consultant, that the quarter-mile bridge not happen at all, that it not cross the river there, that it goes across virgin bush on the other side - an horrendous idea and one that was treated with a deal of derision by everybody at the one meeting of the consultative committee we had, and thankfully I have not heard any more about that.

The other thing that the business plan demonstrated - and I have looked into it further and I am still rock solid on it - is this idea that a tourism experience ought not to be much longer than about an hour and forty-five minutes. This is not that people's attention spans are not any longer than that, it is a question of how long they are motivated and enjoying themselves and not thinking 'How long before we get there?' and an hour and forty-five minutes is recognised around the world as about the top amount.

The problem with the rolling stock is if you were to refurbish them as they last ran in 1963, put them on a new track with four or five carriages, the quickest it can get there is about two hours and fifteen minutes and if you are going to do anything along the way at all, let them get out and pick a wild flower - I suppose that would be prohibited - but let them get out and stretch their legs or whatever -

Mr Cheek - Clean up the pollution.

Mr HIDDING - Stretch your legs - that is not permitted - then that is going to be longer still. The answer to that is what many steam train operations around the world have done that have had this problem and that is to put in a superheating modification inside the boiler. It is not visible to anybody, nobody knows. Rail buffs would not notice a difference from the outside to the inside but, sure, it is probably passed around amongst them that these are superheated. It is a Swiss or English technology that is available and it is a little more expensive but it was catered for in the plan and the most important thing is it is project based. If the customers want an experience for about an hour and forty-five minutes, those trains can deliver an hour and forty-five then that is what you have to go for. And for people simply to say, 'Yes, but the Abt Railway Society don't like it. The train buffs would rather it stay as it originally was and it costs more money anyway' just ignores the most important person in any commercial endeavour, the customer.

The Government will need to keep a weather eye on the end user of this product otherwise it of itself is going to be in trouble notwithstanding everybody's very, very good work. Let us think about the end users of this and that is the customer.

The service has to be fast, it has to have a whole mix of service of services, and I am sure the proponents for the operation of it would be aware that the service has to be very interpretive of the mix of sensations along the way, including the King River that has been talked about a little. The King River Gorge and things like that of themselves are sensational, but the earlier parts of the journey from Queenstown village up to the first part of the Abt track are not as nice or as astounding as the King Gorge, and there is plenty of time for interpretive things of history. There are old videos and tapes that even have terrific footage of when it ran back in the 1960s, really evocative stuff that I am sure with proper interpretive work can really add to the experience.
The service has to mix up with the boat service. People have to be able to decide to leave from Queenstown, catch the train there, go up the river, come back, catch the bus around if they want or a train back through. They really have to integrate into the entire tourism experience in the west.

We always saw this project as around a $40 million project, not a $20 million project. We did not separate out the commercial development that this project should bring. On its own, a long stretch of land with two bulbs on either end with a little bit of development such as a station and what-have-you - yes, it is an attractive thing, it is an experience, but it is a reasonably poor result, because there ought to be much more development, and people will be looking for more than a railway experience. Tourists are funny things. You see them around the world. They will go on the best thing, and you will hear the kids say, 'What is there to do now?' There have to be things, there has to be nice accommodation, and there have to be souvenirs to buy.

So we believe that generally the project is on track - I hesitate to use clichés as the Premier does not like them - and I congratulate the officers for the very hard work I know they have been doing in the background. I look forward to this being progressed by - I can say, Premier, we are not half as complimentary when they are in our clutches like they were in our party room for a little while, I can tell you, but we did have a bit of fun there for five minutes before we got down to some serious work. But we believe it is on track. We are really looking forward to seeing what the proposers of the development are going to come up with, and I trust we can come up with a particularly good operator who can show that they are customer based and can generate enough wealth to keep the railway in tip-top condition and give it every single chance to be the world-class tourism facility that it ought to be.

So, with those comments, I want to leave some time. There are a number of other points that we want to make on this side of the House as to this bill, and I will finish my second reading contribution now.

Mr KEN BACON (Lyons) - I rise to speak just briefly to the Abt Railway Development Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier in his second reading speech, commented on the innovative thinking of the private sector who came up with the very proposal or idea to construct the first railway on the west coast. It was the private sector that undertook the process of drafting the bill that the then parliamentary members actually considered and deliberated on. One has to look back with pride and wonderment at the wisdom of those elected members of parliament and the brave decisions they made back in 1894 in relation to giving the Abt Railway the go-ahead. One has to admire the commitment given to expand and develop the Tasmanian infrastructure and to create much-needed employment by these innovative forebears of ours, and also commend them on their concern for the safety of the persons involved in the construction and use of the railway and ensuring that this took place.

It must have been a mammoth decision in those days to commit to guarantee loans for the construction of a rail system that had never been seen by the persons considering its implementation and operation, and which had only been in use in a few countries, being such a recent invention. Some talk has been made about the construction, and I would just like to refer to the enormity of the task, and there are about 48 timber bridges plus the iron bridge in the original railway. It is not considered desirable from a number of viewpoints to reconstruct each timber bridge as original, particularly given advances in technology, maintenance considerations as well as safety requirements.

However, the contribution of timber bridges for the heritage character of the whole new railway is well recognised. Accordingly, Australia's leading expert on historic railway bridges was retained to provide expert advice. This advice is that a small number of the bridges should be reconstructed in timber to original design in order to maintain their cultural significance. It is planned to go beyond this requirement and reconstruct a significant number of bridges in timber. Some bridges are expected to be constructed using pre-stressed concrete. Approximately ten of the smaller bridges however, will not be rebuilt at all but will be replaced with fill and culvert to allow water to pass through. Most bridges will have a similar architectural trestle design to those originally used. This will enhance the heritage character of the railway.

There are two bridges still remaining much as they were when the railway closed in 1963. They are at Halls Creek and the Iron Bridge in Teepookana. The Halls Creek bridge will be made safe and stand as an essential element of the new railway. The Iron Bridge will remain such as it is at present but with some remediation works. The Quarter Mile Bridge will not be reconstructed as it was. It was of a curved nature and the timber construction of the old original bridge gave massive maintenance costs which made a major contribution to the old railway becoming non-viable. It was concluded to be not sensible to potentially replicate this situation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as chair of the west coast advisory committee I would like to add to those comments made by the Premier that I related to earlier and I would commence by saying that I too have a vision for the west coast and ironically it is almost identical to that of our forebears who were responsible for the successful construction of the Abt Railway some hundred years ago. It would seem, Madam Chair, that not a lot has changed in 100 years in relation to building on and expanding the infrastructure and addressing the employment needs of the west coast region.

My vision obviously involves the completion of the Abt Railway and job creation. It involves the promotion of our tourist attractions on the west coast, many of which are second to none in the world, however are only known to locals in some instances. The promotion of tourist attractions and the many local events on the west coast, such as the Rosebery Athletic Carnival, the Abt Railway, the Blarney Festival, the rock-drilling events, just to name a few, need to be coordinated and advertised on tourist itineraries under the banner of the west coast, not promoted as separate events or advertised in isolation.

We need to ensure that we produce tourist packages that will bring local visitors and tourists to our west coast for minimum periods of up to four days at a time, not advertise single events and have them travel all those miles for a single carnival or one train ride.

I will as the chair of the west coast advisory council be making submissions to our Government to assist me to look at a total package deal for the west coast which I believe, coupled with the most promising mineral exploration being carried out currently, will provide jobs together with properly planned tourist activities which the changing west coast will come to rely on more and more in the coming years as the mining towns as we know them today adapt to the ever-changing structure and the introduction of new technologies which ultimately and unfortunately lead to a reduction in manning levels and employment, which ultimately affect the cash flow available to small communities - the ever-changing work patterns as we move from eight-hour days, seven days per week to four days per week on twelve-hour shifts. All these changes are having a dramatic effect on the financial viability of these small towns on the west coast: the loss of the Hydro and its work force, the withdrawal of company funding which has had a drastic effect on towns such as Rosebery, Tullah and Zeehan. On such a submission we will suggest reconstruction work commence on many of the abandoned tourist attractions which as I said are second to none in the world. To name one site and not to give too much away, the Montezuma Falls now are not accessible because of the lack of some initial funding which was previously supplied by the mining companies who also provided a lot of the machinery and manpower which kept this beautiful place maintained and accessible to all.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Abt Railway, as important as it is to the west coast, Queenstown and Strahan, is but one of the many projects which can be redeveloped and promoted on the west coast. It will be along with Strahan the jewel in the crown when it comes to tourism, however we now need to add some more jewels to the crown and if we do that I believe the west coast will prosper and grow as a region, not to mention the opportunities and advantages which will be available to the many smaller west coast towns as a result of the Abt Railway.

As I have said the Abt is the jewel in the crown and will be the main attraction. However if the west coast is promoted and our tourist brochures and itineraries include all the other available options then all on the west coast will benefit. We now have the opportunity to exploit and promote the Abt Railway and the west coast through the Internet and we now have access to the world and the millions of potential tourists through our online centres. We have the ability to sell whatever we wish in the area of tourism to the whole world. If we can coordinate those web pages from the various towns and online centres, the dates, the venues, the events, and our Government assists with the coordination of promotion brochures, web pages and assists the west coast towns over the next few years to kick start the many tourist opportunities which currently exist and which can be redeveloped or developed in the future and if we are as a government as innovative as our predecessors who were the first to be involved in the Abt Railway and we have the vision to plan for the future now as they did in the past, in readiness for the coming years which will be more demanding and taxing on government resources than we have ever known before and which will result in less and less job opportunities, I am sure the west coast region will prosper and grow as will the magnificent venture we have emba rked upon: the restoration of the Abt Railway. I believe the Abt Railway will be a magnetic attraction which the west coast and our Government can build upon and capitalise on and which will ultimately benefit all.

In conclusion I would just like to make some very brief comments. I have a slightly different view of the degradation which has occurred in Queenstown and in the surrounding rivers, mountains and streams. Although I believe it is disgraceful that the environment has been allowed to be damaged as it has been, I have to make the comment that many tourists and fellow Tasmanians I have spoken to in my lifetime in Tasmania have said to me that they regard the damage itself as an attraction and the surrounding hills reflect the crude beauty which in itself is a drawcard for people to visit Queenstown. So although the vegetation and the acid drainage problems need to be addressed and the damage reversed, I believe there is an exaggeration by some as to how tourists will react when they see Queenstown or use the Abt Railway and view the damage that has been done.
I support the bill which addresses and gives proper consideration to the west coast planning and approvals act and which establishes a corporate body to own the land and enter into contracts, all of which will assist in the speedy construction and a sensible operating environment for the Abt Railway.

Mr HODGMAN (Franklin) - Firstly I want to place on record my appreciation of the Lyons member, Mr Hidding, and others on the opposition side when we were government championing the cause of the railway. I have to say that I do concur with the Premier's second reading speech and the member for Lyons, Mr Ken Bacon's very in-depth contribution and his obvious commitment to seeing this railway operating as both Government and Opposition, and I daresay the Greens would like to see it. In a general principle of a railway operating, I think there is a consensus across the House.

I do not want to be a killjoy, but I do want to place on record in regard to matters I raised in the previous debate on the CMT my real concern about the environmental impact of the area in which this train will go through. I believe that the corporate body we are striking, it makes commonsense to have that as a corporate body: one minister with all the areas of government to deal with as a one-stop shop. Eventually when it operates as a tourist attraction it will become a very strange bedfellow with CMT who, on the other side of the ledger, are cleaning up a mine site.

Probably today will be the happiest that these two corporate bodies will ever be, seeing both pieces of legislation going through in the one day, because I can see a real hornet's nest in the future when the mine is doing a clean up and there is pollution dilution or colouring, or discolouring in the waters; blasting, or whatever, and the operator is saying, 'This must stop' and the quarry saying, 'We must go ahead and do it because we're under an environmental management plan'. There is going to be war down the track and the Premier of the day and his minister will have to try and reconcile that and they will do so with my very best wishes. I guess the only comfort they can take is that the problem will no doubt live longer than they will in government because I think -

Mr Jim Bacon - It might be you again.

Mr HODGMAN - That would be an interesting situation, but whoever is going to be the minister or the Premier of the day will have to try and reconcile these two parties.

I think we have looked at the proposal through rose-coloured glasses and we all want to see it work from an environmental side. I am not a Johnny-come-lately in regard to this: I made these exact comments when I was Minister for Environment, I do so again today. There will need to be a nurturing of goodwill between these two bodies, CMT and the Abt Railway; there will need to be - and I am repeating myself so I will be brief because I said this in the CMT debate today - a very clever strategy advising those tourists who travel on this train about the history of the King River and the pollution at Mount Lyell and the fact that it was 100 years of mining and the pollution is spread over that period of time and the Federal and State government of both political persuasions have been addressing it and have a rehabilitation program in the system.

I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, without any shadow of a doubt, people who travel on that train, if they are not briefed about that river and the history of it and what is being done, will come out at the end of that line very angry people. We are talking about our major tourism market of Melbourne, Victoria and New South Wales. I know from past experience, when they have a view on environmental matters in Tasmania they let us know loud and clear, and I have been the recipient of kitbags full of mail from people saying Tasmania is an environmental disaster and it has done all sorts of dreadful things. That will not necessarily stop, but it can be diminished by proper funding, alerting those people travelling on the train that things are happening in cleaning up the river. It is the irony of life where you probably have the best tourist attraction right beside our worst environmental problem, and you are asking those two icons, I guess, to coexist.

Mr Groom - They might complement each other, Peter.

Mr HODGMAN - They might complement each other but I think pigs might fly first.

I hope that in the strategy of these two major announcements and decisions today through the Parliament which do have tripartite approval, we all want to see it work, and I am placing my concerns on the record of Hansard on behalf of the Opposition. The last thing I want to do in years to come is to say, 'I told you so', but therein lies a probability that I think will occur unless we do handle this thing carefully. Apart from that, I sound like a killjoy, I do wish the project all the best.

Ms PUTT (Denison) - Madam Deputy Speaker, the Greens do support the Abt Railway development, in fact during the Franklin dam dispute the proposal to pursue this development was originated by the Wilderness Society. Of course at the time their suggestion was treated as a bit of a laugh and was treated with contempt, and the position that was put forward that there was a future for rebuilding this railway and for tourism on the west coast based on the attraction of this railway, and ecotourism, that notion was virtually laughed out of town at the time.

But fortunately the idea has persisted; it was a good idea then and it remains a very good idea now. Of course history has shown us that it was not simply invented as some sort of excuse to justify the position that the Wilderness Society was adopting with respect to the damming of the Franklin, that they were correct in perceiving the trends that were occurring both within Tasmania and further afield that that would lead to such a redevelopment becoming attractive and being seen as a new focus for economic development on the west coast.

So it is pleasing that we have come far enough that most people have actually forgotten that this was called a loopy idea of the Wilderness Society. Hopefully some of the other alternatives that have been advanced seriously by people and are being laughed at yet today will also be shown, as more and more of these ideas are, to be in fact worthy of consideration, and I think that often ideas are judged by the people who come up with them rather than the merit of the idea itself in Tasmania. I hope the days that that occurs are changing, because we all have an interest in making sure that our society does develop in a way that is of mutual benefit to everybody.

People who get engaged in the development/antidevelopment debates, if you want to characterise them that way, do not do so because they hate the place and want to stop everything happening. They actually do it because they love the place and they want to see developments that happen be in tune with what they regard as the attributes that need to be protected and they want to see that development can go forward while people can still look after the environment. And so a development such as this, which builds on the historic heritage nature of that railway, which of course has a broad appeal to railway buffs much further afield and which can add to ecotourism and to economic activity on the west coast, is entirely appropriate and very welcome. At the time that the Wilderness Society advanced the idea that ecotourism would become a major industry and that tourism would be a major industry on the west coast, people just made fun of them. In fact it is coming to pass. It is acknowledged now in Queenstown and on the coast that times have changed, that mining will never provide the number of jobs and the type of injection into the economy that it used to in the past, and that it is time to branch out. At the same time, look at Strahan. You can see what has happened with the redevelopment of Strahan following on the success of the campaign to prevent the damming of the Franklin, and you can see that there is a substantial tourism trade there, and that in fact the environmental protection has led to Strahan being the go-ahead town in the area. Of course there is increased economic activity around it, and bringing tourists there enables more and more people to appreciate the beauties of the west coast and of the World Heritage environment and Macquarie Harbour.

I think that now with the Abt Railway development we are going to see another very good project that is added to this new developmental direction for the west coast that enables the west coast to put its eggs in more baskets than it has had them in in the past, that we are going to see tourists come who are interested in railways, people who are in the State already deciding that they will take that rail trip, and of course people interested in ecotourism and the environment and the sights along the way also choosing to use the railway experience. I myself have a brother who is a railway buff, and when I said to him, 'Have you heard of the Abt Railway? Do you know it's going to be redeveloped?' he went into raptures, and started raving on about all sorts of things about the way the tracks are laid and all this sort of stuff that I just do not understand. But he is not an isolated case. There are a lot of people, I can assure you, around Australia and probably internationally who are going to come to Tasmania simply because the Abt Railway has been redeveloped. It is that significant to these people. Their idea of a good outing is to go on a train trip on a different sort of historic train whenever they possibly can. I have spent a bit too much of my life travelling round in trains to be quite that enamoured of them, and I have always thought the gold pass for rail travel that members of parliament had was sort of like giving me, you know, a gift that I really did not want to have.

Mr Jim Bacon - Do you think that should apply to the Abt Railway or not?

Ms PUTT - The gold pass? Well, that is an interesting question, is it not, because at the moment it only applies interstate.

Mr Jim Bacon - I'd better say I don't.

Members laughing.

Ms PUTT - What I would like to know is what have you done with the ten gold passes that were handed in that are no longer used by members of parliament? Have you melted them down and used the gold for something, or are they still hanging around in the bottom of someone's drawer, because they would be worth about four grand -

Ms PUTT - at least, possibly more, because each one of those passes is worth about $400 just for the gold that is in it.

Mr Cheek - Not any more, the gold price has dropped.

Mr Groom - Someone pinched mine.

Ms PUTT - I do not think we need gold passes for this railway, that is the short answer. I do not think we need gold passes at all -

Mr Jim Bacon - Neither do I.

Ms PUTT - and I have never used mine. In fact I have to confess I lost it for a few years but it turned up again. But some joker in my office managed to photograph it with a statue that looked like it was in Florence and another one of Ned Kelly and was sending me these postcards from my gold pass for a number of months - so that is the history of that.

Anyway, back to the Abt Railway development, the Greens do support this. In fact, interestingly doing my research for the bill that we have just debated on the Copper Mines of Tasmania agreement, I read through some second reading speeches that Christine Milne had given when we had previously dealt with agreements on CMT and she spoke at length about the place of mining in the future of the west coast and other proposals or other ideas that should be progressed to the proposal stage and she thought had a potential for development. Of course, the one that she stressed in front of all of those was a redevelopment of the Abt Railway so I am very pleased that we actually have this conjunction here today where we have got the Abt Railway development coming on immediately after the Copper Mines of Tasmania agreement ratification and that there is now a general acknowledgment in politics in Tasmania that there is room for and it is desirable to foster this type of development on the west coast that looks to ecotourism and to broadening the economic base away from its traditional focus on resource extraction. I believe it is going to prove a huge benefit to Queenstown and that that of course will then be a flow-on benefit to Tasmania.

I think the issue that was raised about the awful sight of the pollution that has emanated from the Mount Lyell mine historically and the effect that is going to have on tourists is a point well made. I think that the interpretative material that is supplied as part of the Abt Railway experience should actually contrast the old and the new, the Abt Railway, the way that we are now appreciating our environment and creating economic activity based upon that with the legacy that we are still trying to cope with from Mount Lyell and show that while some aspects of our history deserve recreating and treasuring such as the railway, others are best done away with and that we are still struggling to actually find a way to remedy some of the problems that have arisen.

I am not saying no mining should occur, I am saying no mining that delivers that sort of environmental degradation should ever again occur and I am sure that everybody in the House agrees with me on that and that we need to actually explain to people what has happened, the long journey that we have come on in Tasmania where we ended up with the terrible legacy of pollution and the way that ill-advised activities of former generations can actually rebound for many, many years into the future. I think that that sort of interpretation is going to be very valuable for visitors. It is going to inform them, not just about the place that they are in, although of course that will be of quite some significance, but more generally about the impacts of human interaction with the environment and the different nuances and the different approaches that we can take.

There is one matter that I have been contacted about and asked to raise, and interestingly it was not by a conservation group. In fact the Tasmanian Conservation Trust says that they have no problems with this bill, but I know that some individuals in area who are actually affected by these provisions have been making some complaints. Essentially, what is happening in section 29 of this bill is that the rights of a landholder to consent to the granting of a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act is taken away.

I have heard both sides of the story. Apparently what has happened is that some land-holders had letters asking for their consent for the railway to go across their land. However at least one of the people in question is claiming they do not know the exact route and they need that issue clarified about exactly where the railway will go before they can give consent. What the Government says is, 'We won't know exactly where it goes until we have gone through the approvals process and really honed things down', so we are definitely in a chicken-and-egg situation here. I always think it is a problem if you take away people's rights. I do not know what the best way to go about it is but it seems that these individuals had letters from Sinclair Knight Mertz asking for consent, felt they did not have the information to give consent so basically responded in that vein and the next thing they know there is the provision in this bill to actually do away with the need for them to consent. I would have thought it more appropriate that the Government made a bit more of an effort to get consent from those people before they jumped immediately to this provision. I understand that there is however still an appeals process that is open to these individuals under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act, that that has not been done away with. Hopefully if down the line they are still very dissatisfied at the end of the process that does determine what parts of the land that is their property is affected, they can make some form of appeal.

That is the main issue I wanted to bring up with respect to any problem with the bill. I understand that there is to be some compulsory acquisition and that the body concerned is not particularly happy with that and that that body is the Forestry corporation. They have not come to me to say they have a problem so I do not suppose I need to represent their view. I would be interested however if the Government is able to say what designation that Forestry crown land actually falls into. Is it crown land or is it just Forestry-owned land that is owned by the corporation because Forestry actually administers two types of land in that respect. I just want to know whether or not it is reserved land for the purposes of nature conservation or whether it is working forests that we are talking about. I am simply inquisitive with respect to that matter.

But in general, the Greens are very pleased to see the Abt Railway development progressing. We would have been very dismayed if this legislation had overridden any of the environmental laws of this State but it most explicitly does not override those laws or that process. If it had done, I would have been unable to support it but I am satisfied that it does not do that. The only other thing I suppose I need to put on the record here is that I would not like to see this legislation used as a precedent for legislation for the magnesite rail link. I think that is an entirely different type of project and the issues are quite different and I would not like to see the farmers, for example, who are in the route for that rail link finding that they have a similar clause to 29. I would imagine that there could also be other problems in dealing with the magnesite rail link in a similar fashion to this bill.
But with respect to the Abt Railway Development Bill, thank goodness we finally have it here. It has only been since the early 1980s that the Greens have been pushing for it so it has only taken about twenty years and we are really, really happy that it is going to happen.

Mr Cheek - The Abt Railway?

Ms PUTT - Yes. The Wilderness Society proposed the Abt Railway redevelopment as an alternative development project for the west coast instead of the Franklin dam - and they were laughed out of town at the time.

Mr Cheek - You're ahead of your time, I've always said that.

Ms PUTT - In that case listen more closely to some of the things we come up with today that people reckon are a bit loopy because often they actually come to pass years down the track. It is a long process getting the community to embrace new ideas and I guess in Tasmania in particular sometimes we are a bit slow to come to that. Anyway, it is only about twenty years since the Wilderness Society started the push for this and I am really pleased to see it come to fruition. We have been very strong supporters of it all the way through, and if you look at Christine Milne's speeches, whenever it touches on the west coast in this House she got up and really forcefully pushed for the Abt Railway development.

Mr Hidding - Are the Greens going to buy any sleepers off the Abt Railway Society? There are 47 000 sleepers? There's 1 000 put aside for you.

Ms PUTT - I do not know about that. Sleepers?

Mr GROOM (Denison) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Government on this important step towards realising a dream. I am surprised the Wilderness Society would be claiming credit for this idea -

Ms Putt - I'm just saying they started pushing the idea.

Mr GROOM - because those of us who know the west coast well know how hard people on the west coast have been fighting for this -

Ms Putt - Yes, I'm not saying they haven't.

Mr GROOM - for many, many years -

Ms Putt - Twenty?

Mr GROOM - And I do congratulate Vic Crocker and the team there who have fought very hard against the odds really over the years to try to encourage people to take an interest in this idea, hoping that it would eventually come to fruition. I want to congratulate Rene Hidding who has played a vital role in this. The only reason this is now coming about is because the Federal Government were convinced that they should put a large slab of the Centenary of Federation funding into this project and, to be quite frank, although many others have played an important part, I do believe that Rene Hidding played a critical part in bringing it to the State Cabinet at the time, in talking to our Federal colleagues, senators and others to convince them that this was a vital project and one that had real merit. And we are very pleased that Mr Bacon and his Government have carried on and have pursued this vigorously as well and we commend them for the job that they have done, and the people who have worked on this particular bill. I am one who actually saw the Abt Railway operating. I did not actually travel on the Abt Railway -

Mr Jim Bacon - You're a fair bit older than the rest of us, Ray.

Mr GROOM - Not all that much, Jim. I know it operated till the 1960s, but in the early 1950s I can recall it operating and seeing it operate on the west coast. It of course was the means of transporting the ore from Mount Lyell to Strahan and then it was shipped out through Hells Gates in the old days, but then of course later it was shipped out through Burnie, and so the ore was transported to Melba Flats and onto the Emu Bay Railway to take it up to Burnie. That was the way it was shipped out, and that is the way it is still shipped out today. But I think it is a great thing that this is being developed. It will be an important tourism asset for the west coast, and as the mining industry winds down - mines of course are finite - we need to really fill that vacuum with something else to make sure we can maintain the community on the west coast, and that point has been made by other people during this debate. I think tourism does have a very big future on the west coast, and this will be a key element in the future development of the tourism industry on the coast because I think a lot of people will want to go to the west coast to see and experience the Abt Railway. And indeed people, as Ms Putt said, will come to Tasmania for this purpose. There are these great enthusiasts around the world who will come. Perhaps some people would doubt whether in fact it will attract extra tourists to any extent, but I think it will because if people come here, they enjoy something like the Abt Railway, they will find it is an enjoyable experience and they will go back and tell their friends and so on, and I think it will add to the product that we have here in Tasmania, and I think to an important extent it will add a significant element to the things that we can offer as a State as far as tourism is concerned, because we do need to have attractions, not just things you can see that are static but actually experiences for people to enjoy whilst they are here in Tasmania.

The King River issue which was raised by a few of the speakers, and Mr Hodgman particularly raised it and expressed his concern I think in a very genuine manner, is an issue. How will the tourists find that experience coming down from Queenstown through beautiful country, through forest areas, over the gorges and so on, along the track, and then they get to the King River and they see that ugly situation. I think it might, in a sense, complement the experience, and I think it needs to be sold in the right sort of way. You certainly would have to be up front with it and explain it all so that people fully understand it. I also think that when the tourists are going there they will put pressure on governments, Commonwealth hopefully as well as State, to put some money in to provide for regeneration of that area, vegetation, forest areas, along the King River to make it a bit more attractive than it is at the present time.

I just want to make a couple of brief points about the bill itself, and I do not really intend, Mr Hidding, if you have no objection, to develop these ideas later in the Committee stage. It is an interesting -

Mr Lennon - Did you give your approval then?

Mr Hidding - Absolutely.

Mr GROOM - Thank you, Sir. The ministerial corporation concept I find a quaint one, a sort of a legal fiction where Mr Bacon becomes a corporation. It sounds impressive like he is a sort of BHP, or something, but he is simply the one person.

Mr Hidding - Can we buy shares in him?

Mr Jim Bacon - Only a little Australian, not a big one.

Mr GROOM - Can we buy shares in Mr Bacon? This is interesting, I think, this quaint legal fiction that Mr Bacon now becomes a corporation. I do not want to be offensive, but there is this talk of emperor, this and that and the other, now it is the corporation.

Mr Jim Bacon - Now I'm a corporation.

Mr GROOM - You have gone beyond emperor - that kingly sort of phase - and you have entered into the corporate world as a corporate entity.

Mr Jim Bacon - All the economic rationalists have finally got to me.

Mr GROOM - But what is this corporation? The ministerial corporation consists of the minister so -

Mr Lennon - A committee of one, that's what they're always calling for.

Mr GROOM - it is this interesting sort of persona. The corporation is this embodiment of - this is Jim Bacon, he is the corporation. He is a body corporate.

Mr Jim Bacon - For the time being.

Mr GROOM - He has perpetual succession - this is interesting.

Mr Hidding - He's going to be with us forever!

Mr GROOM - I do not know who has drafted this, I am a bit wary of Mr Brownscombe and Mr Wood and others. There might be more in this than is obvious.

Mr Hidding - This was done a bit late one night, I would suspect.

Mr GROOM - We still will have elections, will we not?

Mr Jim Bacon - I'd better get advice on that.

Members laughing.

Mr GROOM - By golly, this is one of the most cunning devices ever devised by man to create the Premier into a corporation and give him perpetual succession.

Mr Cheek - A benevolent dictator, that's what we need in the State. I've always said that.

Mr GROOM - And you have the corporate seal, the seal of approval. Not the royal seal, he has the corporate seal which you can stamp on anything you wish to stamp on. But you can also sign documents, presumably, because you can take judicial notice of his signature.

Mr Hidding - Who else would? There are no other directors.

Mr GROOM - I would like to know from you, Mr Premier, exactly why you wish to become a corporation because you could simply be Jim Bacon, Premier, and do all the same things. There is no doubt about that. But you wish to be a corporation, obviously, and have your seal, have perpetual succession, be a body corporate and keep your seal. I do not know where you keep your seal, and so on, but it is an interesting concept. I am told that maybe there have been other examples of this. We would like to know more details about where these examples are where a premier has become a body corporate with just one person: he is the body corporate, he is the board of directors, he is everything. He is it and a bit.

But you can delegate -

Mr Cheek - To himself.

Mr GROOM - the exercise of your functions as a body corporate to anyone, so here we have this important step where you become this ministerial corporation - a body corporate - and then you can then pass on any of your powers to anyone.

Mr Hidding - Will he have an ACN number?

Mr GROOM - An ACN number, that is an interesting one. Will you have an ACN number? He probably would have, I would think, in a body corporate. Are you subject to the corporations power, Mr Bacon, this is what we would like to know, and will you have an ACN number? And do you have to be registered.

Mr Lennon - ACN No. 1.

Mr GROOM - Is that his number plate, or his - ACN-TAS1, that will be it. And you will be TAS2, but you are not a body corporate. That is a wise decision not to become a body corporate.

Mr Hidding - This sounds like TasInc to me.

Mr GROOM - On a serious note - and the Attorney is here, he would fully appreciate this one - all of these things could be achieved just by Mr Bacon being Mr Bacon, not being this magnificent body corporate.

Mr Patmore - To me he's always Jim.

Mr GROOM - He could be simply Mr Bacon, he can sign his documents, he can be the responsible minister just as Mr Llewellyn is under the Water Management Act - heaven help us. What a shemozzle that is. But Mr Llewellyn is prepared to front up and be the minister - I think he has too many powers under that act and he is, I think, unwise to take on or assume all of those powers. But he is simply Mr Llewellyn, the minister, and what do we have here? We have this charade or this facade of Mr Bacon becoming the body corporate; he is not the minister, he is the body corporate in this particular bill.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - A government business enterprise?

Mr GROOM - Is he a GBE? Madam Deputy Speaker, you are not supposed to enter into the debate but you have raised a very important question: is he also a government business enterprise.

Mr Hidding - Will we have an Estimates?

Mr GROOM - And will we have an Estimates. Well, that is an interesting one too. I think we need a lot of answers, and especially on some of those electoral issues that the Premier has suddenly become this ongoing body corporate under this act of the Parliament.

But you have the power as a ministerial corporation to acquire land, including crown land, and it of course includes private land under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of the railway development. That is fair enough. But then of course you can proceed to sell the land to any person on any terms it - that is you, the body corporate or the ministerial corporation - considers appropriate. So here you are, you acquire the land, then you can sell the land - Mr Brownscombe is shaking his head here. 'The ministerial corporation may sell any land acquired or any estate or interest in the land to any person on any terms' - I am reading from the bill - 'to any person or on any terms it considers appropriate'. And then the price has to be determined. So in respect to the conditions the price has to be determined. You can only sell according to the valuation fixed by the Valuer-General for that land. I think that is an unusual step, that you can compulsorily acquire land then you can sell it off or to think -

Mr Jim Bacon - It's only in accordance with this act.

Mr GROOM - 'Private landowners'. We would have faith in you but we are concerned about this ministerial corporation. We are suspicious about it.

Mr Jim Bacon - If you've got the faith in me, you don't have to worry, I'm it.

Mr GROOM - You are it.

Mr Cheek - It's a good idea, I wish I'd thought of it.

Mr Jim Bacon - For the time being, I meant.

Mr Cheek - Are you going to hire yourself out for other projects?

Mr GROOM - Do you get tax benefits from this?

Mr Jim Bacon - What do you reckon? You'd know because you've been exactly the same.

Mr GROOM - A corporation?

Mr Hidding - And you didn't even know it.

Mr Jim Bacon - You didn't even know.

Mr GROOM - When was I a corporation?

Mr Jim Bacon - Oh, well, we'll get to that.

Mr GROOM - I would like to know this. I am interested in this one.

Mr Hidding - But how come you didn't even know it?

Mr GROOM - The ministerial corporation - I am interested to know where there was an act in which I was the ministerial corporation -

Mr Jim Bacon - Well, we'll get to it later.

Mr GROOM - I dispute that actually. Which act are you talking about? Come on, tell me where I was a ministerial corporation?

Mr Jim Bacon - I am not going to interject.

Mr GROOM - Or you might suggest that I had some powers of some sort but you show me the act, the part that says I was the ministerial corporation. I challenge you to produce any act in Tasmania that says -

Mr Jim Bacon - You've asked for some examples and we'll get you some examples.

Mr GROOM - I challenge you to produce any act in the State Parliament which speaks of a ministerial corporation in which one person happens to be the ministerial corporation and if you can produce if you are able to - I doubt whether you can. Clause 15:

'The Ministerial Corporation, after consultation with the council and the lessee, may determine that any area at Queenstown Station be used or not be used for commercial activities.'

I simply note that we were grateful that we were provided with a briefing on this bill so some of these matters were raised at that briefing and we thank the minister for that, but I think that is too vague. I know that there is this area called the Queenstown Station, but what area is it precisely?

Mr Jim Bacon - We don't know yet.

Mr GROOM - You do not know yet but any area at the Queenstown Station - if it was a Queensland station it would be pretty large, perhaps, but the Queenstown Station may not be so large but it can be used or not used for any commercial purpose as you might determine.

You have enormous powers under this particular bill granted unto yourself or subject to the Parliament agreeing. Tourism developments in clause 16:

'The Ministerial Corporation may identify a potential site for the development of any tourism venture in any area that is in close proximity to the railway.'

Again, I believe that is too vague, 'close proximity to the railway'.

'The Ministerial Corporation may acquire any land for the purpose referred to in subsection (1)' -

that is for a tourism venture. You can acquire any land for this tourism venture, again we do not know exactly where. It could be private land so you can tell someone, 'We're going to acquire your land for a tourism development'. They will say, 'Where?', 'In close proximity to the railway'. What is close proximity? Where is that defined? It is not defined anywhere in here and it is not a legal term that is well known - not precise anyway. It means nearby somewhere but is that 100 metres or 200 metres or whatever? Let us find out what you can tell us about that. Then you can lease that area for up to 99 years or sell the land - you can sell the land as well; you can acquire it and then you can sell it or lease it for 99 years.

We would appreciate some comments in respect to clause 28, the non-application of other acts of the Parliament: 'by order' - and here it is says the minister, not the ministerial corporation - I am sure there is a reason for that and I do understand the reason because only the minister can actually publish in the Gazette or I suppose we can have an act of parliament which says the ministerial corporation could publish in the Gazette but anyway:

'may declare that a provision of any Act, other than the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, does not apply to the railway development or the railway.'

You can decide that in theory - I know you would not be doing this but in theory, I suppose, criminal laws even, you could say they will not apply on the railway or other law. So there is a degree of faith - you are asking us to have complete faith that you will not, by order, declare that a whole range of different laws would not apply. You might indicate to us which you have in mind, which acts of the parliament would you say should not apply? There should be a list of them there. Ms Putt has raised the matter of clause 29. There is concern about that - private landowners are concerned that they are being disadvantaged and have not been properly informed about what is happening, about what their rights are and so on and that their rights might be limited because of clause 29 where section 52 does not apply in respect to an application for a permit under the act.

Then of course the ministerial corporation can make by-laws and the ministerial corporation is to cause notice of the making of by-laws to be published in the Gazette et cetera and as a corporation you can do all these things. Well again I think that is interesting, that this corporation which is simply yourself can do all those things and it is interesting in one place you can say the minister can do it and in other places you say the ministerial corporation can do it.
But having made those points, we do generally support the legislation and the development, it is a key step forward in this important development for the west coast and for Tasmania. We are particularly grateful that the Government has taken this step, we are pleased of course the Federal Government has put in $20.4? -

Mr Jim Bacon - Five.

Mr GROOM - Five. A sum of $20.5 million which is obviously the bulk of the money to pay for this development but this will facilitate this development and make it all possible, bring it all together hopefully so that it can come to fruition as soon as possible. I particularly congratulate the people on the west coast who have shown so much perseverance over such a long time to work towards ultimately recreating the Abt Railway which will be a very exciting development for our State.

Mr CHEEK (Denison) - I just want to say a few words on this as a great supporter of an AFL stadium for Tasmania which I still think was a magnificent project also and hopefully we will get an AFL team in the future because I think it is critical to Tasmania's future or certainly Tasmania's football future and I know the Premier shares those views too in a lot of ways. But having said that, I am also a great supporter of the Abt Railway redevelopment and how could I not be having lived on the west coast for a year in the 1970s knowing the people of Queenstown pretty well and being very involved with Mount Lyell at that time and knowing what fantastic people they are? I still have friends there although a lot of them have moved out by this stage.

I am probably one of the few people I would think in the Parliament who has actually walked the full Abt Railway route right through from beginning to end.

Mr Hidding - How long did it take you?

Mr CHEEK - I cannot remember, it was a long time ago.

Mr Hidding - Would you do it in a day?

Mr CHEEK - Yes, we did it in a day. It was quite an experience. It was 1976 I think and I remember thinking at that time would it not be fantastic to recreate this railway but I must admit I did not go out and seek $20.5 million from the Federal Government at that particular time but it was and, pollution aside, it was a magnificent railway and it can be redeveloped into a magnificent railway again.

I certainly support this bill and I believe that as a person who has fought for easier planning laws and to cut through red tape, why would you not support it, having a ministerial corporation that can virtually handle the development and be solely responsible for most things to be able to get approvals. Maybe it is a way of the future for Tasmania, and although it will not apply to any other projects I understand, I certainly would not mind borrowing the Premier's ministerial corporation for any developments I may deem to do in the future. I have done a few in the past and I would have liked to have a ministerial corporation in place. Mr Hidding probably has as well and would have liked to have had a ministerial corporation there as well.
I am sure Mr Bacon would jump at the opportunity to be able to use his ministerial corporation to help me in any way in the future for developments for Tasmania so maybe -

Mr Jim Bacon - It's only for the Abt Railway.

Mr CHEEK - Yes, I know that but maybe it could lead to greater things -

Mr Jim Bacon - No.

Mr CHEEK - because certainly how could you not agree with something like this which is going to make it easier to be able to get through red tape and planning and I think that is needed if it is used responsibly.

Mr Jim Bacon - Particularly if people will go to a linear development you see, that is one of the issues, there are a lot of different landowners.

Mr CHEEK - I know, I understand that I understand the reason why it is being done and I wish you well.

The whole Abt Railway is a very interesting project as I said just looking at it from the outside and I have not been closely involved like you have and Mr Hidding and others, but for an operator to be able to make money out of it when you look at what they are going to have to spend, they have to spend on infrastructure at either end, I take it: they are going to have to put forward a proposal there where they are going to spend millions probably to be able to do the terminals at both ends; as you said earlier, to fund ongoing maintenance of the railway which you also said was the reason why it closed down in the first place - you would think that the Government are going to have to give a very attractive lease proposal of a peppercorn lease - you understand that - to get a project going, I mean, to get it off the ground, well why would you not? So you have to make it reasonably attractive while not being seen to put too much government money in and certainly making it stand on its own two feet in the future, or its own four wheels in the future, whatever it might be. So it is very important to do that and I know that is what you intend to do.

Mr Hidding - It's sixteen on a loco I think, isn't it?

Mr CHEEK - Sixteen wheels is it. Yes, well, you have the big wheel over there, so we will drive the locomotives.

But it is interesting. On the surface of it I would not like to be putting my money into it but I am sure there are some very good operators around that know far more about railways, like Mr Roger Smith and others, who obviously can see a quid in it and they have far more money to spend that me anyway. But I think with the lease, you are obviously going to have a lease, that is an interesting concept about what you are going to actually lease out and maybe the Premier can enlighten us on that in the future when he is responding to this. What are you actually leasing? There are several different leases; are you leasing the railway tracks, the route itself, are you leasing the buildings at either end? There seems to me there would have to be several leases that are going to come into this and do they have to be leased separately?

So I think from looking at it and from talking earlier that it would have to be six or seven leases. You have the rolling stock of course, which will be leased separately again. So it is going to be an interesting exercise and I will await - I do not know how much information you can give now. I know you are still working on it and I know it is still evolving, a lot of it.

The assessment panel - well, I take it the ministerial corporation, yourself, is not going to choose the successful operator, that is going to be an assessment panel.

Mr Jim Bacon - Correct.

Mr CHEEK - You would not take that on yourself, would you?

Mr Jim Bacon - No.

Mr CHEEK - And I am just going to ask, do you know when that is going to be or can you tell us when that is going to be later when you respond? I suppose you have an idea about who will be on it. You have not chosen anybody yet I take it?

Mr Jim Bacon - No, it's not finalised yet.

Mr CHEEK - Not finalised yet, no. Well, they have a big job to pick the right person and the right operator and I also take it that there will be developments along the track itself, along the route itself, which will not be the domain of the operator. They will have to be put up for tender again. So you could have another developer, it could be, I do not know, Intercontinental Hotels or Sheraton or something along the railway track, as an extreme example. But you may choose a site where you will say, well okay we will call for tenders for this particular site to develop whatever you decide or think it would be suitable for.

So that will not be the domain of the operator who gets the operational lease, that will be another development again. So these things will hopefully expand into a wonderful development right along the length and breadth of it.

I was discussing with my colleague, the opposition spokesman on environment and land management, the pollution angle and there is no doubt about it, having spent a bit of time on the west coast, we know what the pollution is like. It may well be a nice ride. It seems a contradiction or rather ironic where you have a wonderful Abt wilderness experience that is going to go through some of the worst polluted areas in Australia but hopefully that can be used as a contrast to show where we went wrong and we can say to people, 'You would have had a wilderness right through here if it had not been for environmental issues that were left unattended for a long period of time'. Maybe you can have a Jurassic Park experience on the first few kilometres of the rail track. We can put a few dinosaurs in there and the wilderness area, the wasteland that we have, just dying trees and burnt logs sticking up out of the mud - maybe we can turn that into some sort of mystical experience.

But it is not going to be easy and I think that people are going to be fairly horrified by it. I mean, I was when I walked the track twenty years ago just looking down and looking at the polluted river and certainly at the end at Strahan how polluted it was. People are getting the idea I think on the mainland and overseas that it is a great wilderness experience, which it will be but the pollution is something that we have really to look at. I note that there is, I think, funding from the Federal Government, through one of their various bodies to do something about the vegetation. But it is not going to be easy to grow back and it is something that I think will take a long time to heal and maybe it never will and maybe it is the reminder of where we went wrong.

As far as the intellectual property goes, I think it is certainly a good idea to protect the name. With the merchandising I do not know whether it is going to be the operator who actually has the rights to that or whether he then can license it out to various merchandise outlets or whether he completely controls that. I guess that is something that must be decided. I do not know whether the Premier can enlighten us any more on that at this stage. Probably that has to be thrashed out but it is an important one. I am not sure that the drawing of the Queen River on the front of a windcheater is going to be too much value but certainly the Abt Railway itself is because that will become a great name in world train journeys and it needs to be protected. If the operator is going to have the full rights to that, that is going to be worth a fair bit and the Government was taking control of it and it will license it out when the time comes. So the intellectual property becomes a pretty important part about it.

As far as the bill itself goes - I will not go through all those again - I shared my concern with my colleague, Mr Groom, the shadow attorney-general, on clause 28 which does seem to be very wide open to be able to go across the provisions of any other act and when you publish it in the Gazette you can virtually completely nullify that. You can take industrial relations, for instance - and that is not an example; I am not going to get into the question of industrial relations - as an example you could have that there and say, 'Well, we're not going to have enterprise agreements allowed' or something. I am not suggesting that for a minute, please; I am just using that as an example I plucked out of the air, but that would be the sort of thing you could do. That would be something, I think, that would worry a lot of people but I am sure you will explain that a bit more fully when the time comes.

I will not take up any more time on it. We want to get through this tonight, I know. I believe it is a worthy project. As I said earlier when I started off, I was a great supporter of the AFL stadium, unashamedly so. I think that was a great project for Tasmania and hopefully we will get an AFL team and we will get a stadium, whether it is at Bellerive now or wherever it may be. Politics got in the way of that one, unfortunately. But the Abt Railway is still there and that is going to be a magnificent -

Mr Jim Bacon - Let's make sure it doesn't next time.

Mr CHEEK - You got in the way of it a bit too, don't worry about that, with your politicking before the election.

Mr Jim Bacon - I supported it.

Mr CHEEK - You sat on the fence very nicely when you thought there were no votes on the north-west coast and in Launceston.

Mr Jim Bacon - Come on, get on with this. Don't go trying to upset me.

Mr CHEEK - When you thought you might lose a few votes you sat on the fence very quickly. I was disappointed in that. But I know we are not talking about an AFL stadium, that will be for another time.

The Abt Railway is a great development, can be a great development. Whether any money is going to be made out of it, how tight it is going to be, I do not know. I have not seen the sums but people are confident that they can make it work and there are some proponents in there who are very keen to take it over. So I wish the Government well and it is going to be a project of course that is of great benefit to Tasmania. Let us hope it stays that way; let us hope it is very viable for a long time in the future.

Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have spoken for their support of the bill and for their generally very enthusiastic comments about the Abt Railway project. I certainly do recognise, as I said in the second reading speech, that in fact this project would not be proceeding without the decision of the Federal Government to provide funding under the Centenary of Federation program. I also recognise the efforts that have been put in by the previous Government, and particularly the member for Lyons, Mr Hidding. I think whether or not the Greens or the Liberals or the Labor Party or people on the west coast or people somewhere else actually were the first to promote the idea of restoring the Abt Railway, I hope that just as many people are happy to claim credit for it as we go through the next couple of years building it and dealing with all the various issues concerned. I hope that everyone who believes that they are entitled to some credit for the idea now also are prepared to say that they want that credit when it is up and operating.

I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for this project and it is certainly shared by the Government, but I think that the last member who spoke - the member for Denison, Mr Cheek - did make some comments which introduced some reality into some of the considerations in relation to this project. I think it is a fact that the funding from the Federal Government, whilst generous does make the task of recreating the railway a very tight exercise. There is certainly no room within that funding for any luxury add-ons, if you like. It will be interesting to see when the tenders for construction come in and the design-and-construct tenders exactly how they do go with what we see as being the budget for the project.

Now that brings me to the most significant point I can make in response to members and that is of course there are concerns about a number of clauses in the bill. There have been concerns expressed I know from people in the community on the west coast about various aspects of the Abt Railway development as there have been in other parts of Tasmania. I was in Queenstown on Sunday and Monday and in Rosebery on Monday afternoon and individuals whose property is affected by or potentially affected by the Abt Railway did see me and they have legitimate concerns about their own property and about how the project might affect that property. But the fact is until we get the design and construct tenders in and actually select the successful tenderer and considerable other work is done in relation to assessment, it is not possible to be absolutely precise about every single feature of this project.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is important to put on the record a response to some of the arguments that have been advanced. I said in my second reading speech that the Abt Railway project has had more consultation than most other projects ever proposed in this State. The process that has gone over the last four or five months has been directed at resolving a few of the issues that were outstanding from the investigation done by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey.

Honourable members will recall that GH&D presented a fairly detailed report on where the railway would go a few years ago and that was the result of about a year's consultation as well. There have been numerous public meetings on the project and invitations issued in the paper and on the radio and in person for people to contact the project manager. In addition a fairly detailed preliminary assessment was distributed in the Western Herald to thousands of west coast residents.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the statutory process of consultation has not even started yet. Once a development application has been lodged the statutory process can commence and under the statutory process a very detailed development proposal and environmental management plan will be released for everyone affected to examine. This document, together with attachments, will run to many hundreds of pages. It is this document, Madam Deputy Speaker, that provides the detail that a number of people are seeking. But the DPEMP cannot be formally released until a development application has been lodged. In a real catch-22 situation - and I think Ms Putt recognised this for the chicken-and-egg situation that is - a development application cannot be lodged as the law currently stands until the owners of affected land give their approval.

As a number of owners have told the Government they will not give their approval to a development application being lodged, a formal development application cannot be issued and the details of the proposal are not able to be publicly considered. So whilst I recognise that people have concerns, legitimate concerns, and, as I said, I met with some of them on the west coast earlier this week and I can understand why they may be reluctant to give agreement to a development application being lodged, nevertheless until that application can be lodged it is impossible for the actual statutory process to commence which will then trigger many of their rights and protect many of their rights.

So in these circumstances we cannot sit back and allow this project, with all the employment that it will bring and with all the hopes of so many Tasmanians riding on it, to be frustrated and effectively stopped dead in its tracks. Consequently this provision has been inserted in the bill so that the project can progress to the point of having its potential impacts considered.

I should make it absolutely clear that as a result of the provision, no person's right to object to the railway proposal will be affected. In these circumstances the rights to object to the proposal as spelt out in the DPEMP will not be affected. The Government believes that this is a reasonable provision to enable this very important development to proceed to the next stage of community consultation.

Under this next stage there is a four-week statutory period in which any person who has concerns about the proposal as outlined in the DPEMP can object. These objections will be considered by the board of environmental management and pollution control, which is not subject to the direction of government.

After that process there is another round of appeals to the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal so, Madam Deputy Speaker the Government finds it difficult to conclude with that process in place that an argument can be advanced that there is insufficient consultation or insufficient mechanisms available for appeals or clarification to be sought in relation to the Abt project. It is actually because we cannot get started on that statutory approval process that leads to the uncertainty and the very many different possibilities that many speakers have referred to.

Now particularly the member for Denison, Mr Groom, had a bit of fun about the situation of the ministerial corporation and if he was in the House I would tell him -

Mr Hidding - He's listening.

Mr Cheek - He's got the squawk box on.

Mr JIM BACON - I am sure he would be listening but they will relay to him that yet again in relation to this particular matter he has preceded me. I am advised that Mr Groom was at one time minister for sea fisheries and under the Fisheries Act 1959, Pat III, subsection 8(2): For the purpose of this Part, the Minister is a corporation sole by the name of the official title of the Minister' -

Mr Cheek - He'll come tearing in the door any minute.

Mr JIM BACON - That means sole as a fish -

Mr Hidding - He'll get you back for that.

Mr JIM BACON -

'for the time being administering this Act, with perpetual succession, using as his corporate seal his seal of office as Minister, and may in his corporate name give, grant, and take real property and, in respect of his corporate property, contract, sue and be sued.'

The only reason why my adviser has found this particular provision is to indicate that in fact this is not the first time this has ever been done. There is good reason why we have drafted the bill this way and why we believe this is the best way for the project to proceed and really that is to ensure that this project has every chance of being completed on time and within budget and without any unnecessary delay, bearing in mind as I have said that people's rights are protected in relation to the approval process and they will have every opportunity to appeal and to make their objections known.

The member for Denison had some jokes about me being in perpetual succession. No, it does not mean that I will be Premier or Minister for State Development forever; that is a normal term that is used in legislation to indicate that whoever holds the office would continue to have these powers under this act.

Whilst I recognise some of the points the member for Denison made in relation to the breadth of the powers that are given, I must point out to the House that of course they are limited also by other provisions in this bill because the ministerial corporation is only established for the purposes of this act. In fact the 'Functions of the ministerial corporation', clause 6, are -

'(a) to arrange for any necessary approval to undertake the railway development; and

(b) to arrange for the undertaking of the railway development; and

(c) to arrange for a person to operate the railway development; and

(d) to facilitate associated developments in the vicinity of the railway.

So in fact whilst yes, it could be said that these are broad powers they are necessary in our opinion to ensure that there are not delays along the track.

A question was asked about the provision which means that other acts apart from the two specified and in another place the Rail Safety Act is also included as to what acts will not apply. Of course it is the very unpredictability of that that does make it hard to in advance say what they could be. Perhaps suffice it to say that the Abt project will go through land that is subject to different tenure. There are different acts of parliament relating to different parts of the land that the railway is to go through, there are many other aspects that could lead to a situation where unless we had this catch-all provision in it it could run foul of other legislation and lead to delays to the project.

I have tried to address the particular issues. The other question that was raised by the member for Franklin, Mr Hodgman, and the member for Denison, Ms Putt, and referred to by the member for Denison, and I think the member for Lyons, Mr Hidding, is in relation to what tourists travelling on the railway will think of the pollution at the mouth of the King River and the Queen River and what effect that will have on this whole project. I think the member for Franklin, Mr Hodgman, suggested that eventually this might end up in some - I do not really want to use the word he used, 'war' - but certainly lead to very acrimonious relationships between the operator and the mining company and the ministerial corporation and so on.

Can I say this about this question because, as I said in debate earlier today on the Copper Mines of Tasmania Bill, we do acknowledge the very serious nature of the environmental damage done as a result of mining at Queenstown over more than a hundred years. I said then that I do see it as the biggest environmental challenge for this generation of Tasmanians and this Government and for future generations and future governments. If anything, I think we should use the Abt Railway project and the fact that more people will be going through that area to assist in explaining what has happened and in fact to use it as a very good example of the very good environment, how good things can look and how bad they can look.

I am advised that focus groups have been held in Tasmania, but also in Melbourne where many of our tourists come from, by a consultant who does research for Tourism Tasmania. The focus groups were specifically asked about their view about going through a beautiful pristine wilderness area and then being exposed to extreme environmental degradation. They were asked if this would be a turn-off to them or if they would see it as being a contrast between what was preferable and how bad things have been done in the past and how necessary it is to improve. I am advised that the overwhelming view of the focus groups was that the contrast could be a useful exercise. I say straight off, it will not be a useful exercise unless it is properly explained to people. I do see this very much as being part of the whole interpretation of the experience of travelling from Queenstown to Strahan on the Abt Railway when it is recreated. I think that is an important matter for the operator, for the Government and for everyone else to understand about this.

It is equally important to have proper interpretation and presentation of the heritage and the history that Mr Hidding and Mr Bacon spoke about. All of that I think though is still for the future because we do not yet have a contractor to recreate the railway, nor do we have an operator.

The question was asked, I think, by Mr Cheek about the tender process. Yes, of course we will have a tender process which can withstand scrutiny from the probity auditor. I will not be selecting nor will I be directly involved in selecting tenderers, but the matter of who is going to do that has not been finally decided. I think in terms of the generally bipartisan attitude that has been displayed by both sides of the House in relation to this project that certainly it is my desire to see that continue.

Mr Cheek - Are you going to have a performance clause in there?

Mr JIM BACON - What, on me?

Mr Hodgman - No, on the project.

Mr JIM BACON - We certainly want to see the bipartisan attitude continue and it is a matter which I would expect will be discussed with Mr Hidding as time goes along. In the near future we will obviously need to be moving to set that up. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone -

Mr Hodgman - Can I ask you one question? I have this real fear this thing is going to be a major financial loss but, if it is, will you see your Government underwriting that loss?

Mr Cheek - Come on, tell us now - put it on the record.

Mr JIM BACON - Well, it is a pretty predictable question but I am certainly not prepared, on my feet as a result of question across the House, to give a guarantee that we will underwrite -

Mr Hidding - I'm not sure why he thinks it's going to be a loss.

Mr JIM BACON - I said before I thought Mr Cheek had put a dose of reality into this. I think there are, frankly, some wildly optimistic views about the number of extra visitors this is likely to attract to Tasmania -

Mr Hodgman - I have never been convinced by those figures, personally, and that is why I think it has the possibility of running at a loss.

Mr JIM BACON - The work that has been done by GHD and by Sinclair Knight Mertz and by other consultants and by the steering committee I think is injecting a dose of reality into all of this. But certainly I do not expect that this is going to be a hugely profitable venture, particularly in early years. I think Mr Cheek was quite wise to point out that there is a number or rather a whole range of risks that the operator will be taking on, and I do hope that that is clear in their minds as they come to put forward their proposals -

Mr Hodgman - It's very hard to find a profitable railway service anywhere.

Mr Hidding - The ones in Wales are making millions.

Mr JIM BACON - My advice is that in fact virtually all of these railways, if not all, around the world - historic railways that operate do in fact involve voluntary labour at least in part -

Mr Hodgman - That's right, to make the ends meet.

Mr JIM BACON - and that would surely be in part because they are not hugely profitable ventures. I am certainly not trying to be a wet blanket on the project. I certainly hope it will be successful -

Mr Hodgman - I think you're being a realist.

Mr JIM BACON - I am a realist and therefore I will not give you a guarantee that we will underwrite it on my feet in the House. I think -

Mr Hidding - You'll find a good operator.

Mr Cheek - At the end of the day you've got to get an operator. I take it the State Government won't operate it.

Mr JIM BACON - No.

Mr Cheek - So you're going to have to make it attractive enough whether you like it or not.

Mr JIM BACON - Well, I think the point you made about the lease was pretty valid. We are certainly not expecting much income from the lease.

Mr Cheek - No, you won't get rich on that.

Mr JIM BACON - So you need not worry about the ministerial corporation growing fat on the proceeds of the lease or, as you pointed out, the multiple leases that may be involved.

I think this is a great venture. I think the vision behind it is great. I think the potential for Tasmania is great. But I do believe that we need to be realistic and I am glad that with the passage of this bill, with the implementation of the approval processes and with the selection of both the design-and-construct tender and the operator tender, that reality will be brought into this whole debate and I certainly have a positive view and am optimistic that the Abt Railway will not only fulfil all the wishes of the Tasmanian people about it but will also be able to run in an economically viable manner.

I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have answered all of those matters raised and I will conclude with those comments.

Bill read the second time and taken through the remaining stages.