Select Committee on Train Services

Establishing Debate Extract

(Source: Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 11 March 2009, 1408-18)

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- I move: That --

(1) A select committee of seven members be appointed to inquire into the factors leading to and causes of failures in the provision of metropolitan and V/Line train services;

(2) The committee will consist of three members from the government party nominated by the Leader of the Government, three members from the Liberal-National coalition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member from the Australian Greens nominated by the Australian Greens whip;

(3) The members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President by the persons referred to in paragraph (2) no later than 4.00 p.m. on Friday, 20 March 2009;

(4) The first meeting of the committee must be held no later than 4.00 p.m. on Monday, 6 April 2009;

(5) The committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(6) Four members of the committee will constitute a quorum of the committee;

(7) The chair of the committee will be a non-government member and the deputy chair will be a government member;

(8) The committee will advertise its terms of reference and call for submissions and all such submissions received by the committee will be treated as public documents unless the committee otherwise orders;

(9) The committee may commission persons to investigate and report to the committee on any aspects of its inquiry;

(10) The committee will present its final report to the Council no later than March 2010;

(11) The presentation of a report or interim report of the committee will not be deemed to terminate the committee's appointment, powers or functions;

(12) The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders and sessional orders or practices of the Council, will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing or sessional orders or practices of the Council.

Before the tragedy of the bushfires consumed our minds and hearts there was another unfolding crisis in Melbourne -- the rapid descent into near collapse of our rail system. On some days during January as many people were returning to work there were literally thousands of cancellations, stranding hundreds of thousands of people.

Last year major events such as Oaks Day were turned into a debacle as tens of thousands of people who relied on trains found that they could not rely on them. Cancellations, although dramatic during that period, have been a chronic problem.

Ever since Connex took over, the level of delays seems to have been stuck stubbornly at around 6 to 8 per cent of all trains. I can assure the house that that figure has a much greater impact than it sounds when those delays occur particularly during peak hours, including the morning peak when the problem of trains already being overcrowded becomes compounded with more people waiting for trains that have been cancelled or delayed. People wait for so long that the trains effectively become cancellations, because those people are getting on the subsequent trains that come before the others are due.

Half of those train users are headed for the CBD (central business district), or the city, and another half to stations along the way. The CBD, with its particular mix of industries, is one of our economic engines. We can only imagine the impact in terms of lost time that was visited upon the city as a result of the poor performances and unfolding debacle.

We also hear in related issues that across the transport system the government is starting to miss some of its Disability Discrimination Act targets, and that that leaves the government and the operators open to court action. We have had four different ticketing systems in 16 years, each one more complicated than the last, each one proposing more challenges to users than the last, which is effectively a reduction of service in that you have to work harder to get the same service.

The problem with all this is that we cannot get a straight story on why it is happening. Like in other areas of policy -- for example, water policy, where people used to take the provision of a basic, fundamental service for granted -- they no longer trust the story they are being told by the government, and they are asking questions. They are making their own inquiries and, piecemeal, we are starting to get bits of the picture. We are told that there are not enough trains. In contradiction to that we are told that 'We cannot run more trains'.

Then we are told, 'We're buying more trains'. We are told that increased patronage itself is a source of delays, cancellations and service failures, which of course is blaming the victim. We are told that people in wheelchairs are holding up trains. In the middle of this the head of the Department of Public Transport came out and said, 'It's that laconic Australian culture that really couldn't stand up to trains that arrive and leave on time Swiss watch style'. I will tell you that I have been to Germany, and the first time I got on a train which was running 1 minute early I learnt that that was not the train I wanted to be on and that the train I wanted to take would be the one that arrived exactly on the dot. But it took me only one go to learn it. I am pretty sure that if Australian trains started arriving and leaving on time, I would very quickly get in step.

We are told that we have had train brake failures on trains ordered by a former private operator who is no longer with us.

Those failures are now being passed forward to new operators, or whoever it is that is taking responsibility. Connex, in the middle of this crisis, made a quite extraordinary claim: that 80 per cent of the cancellations were due to union activity. I was sitting in the studio audience at Flinders Street station for the live broadcast when that claim was made, and the Minister for Public Transport, Ms Kosky, who was sitting right beside the Connex spokesperson, made no comment on it. But butter would not have melted in her mouth! I must admit that I was asked what I thought of that claim, and I expressed some scepticism that that would be the case. However, I have to say that if this inquiry proceeds, my mind will be open as to what the causes may be and I will not go into it with any particular misconceptions.

We were told temperature was to blame, and then later we were told we could expect those sorts of temperatures and those sorts of failures on at least 10 days of the year in coming seasons.

Most people would find that unacceptable, along with the cancellations and delays that mean very often -- perhaps as often as one day in four in my estimation -- the train you are waiting for does not arrive at the time you are expecting it to as a regular commuter. A car that did not start for 20 minutes one day in four would be returned as a lemon, but it is seen to be normal or acceptable or par for the course when it comes to the train system.

We are told that the rail infrastructure -- literally the rails, the points and the joints themselves -- have caused derailments. Signalling can be the problem. We do not have the radios we need. There are speed restrictions across parts of the network. Power supplies are apparently inadequate. Theft of copper wire leads to disruptions. But what I am trying to point out to the house is that in this vast array of excuses someone is always pointing the finger at someone else, and no-one is stepping forward to take responsibility.

The purpose of this inquiry, which I think I have just pointed out is of great public importance and certainly has a genuine line of inquiry to be sorted out, is to find the answers to some of these questions through a systematic and deliberate process of inquiry, calling all witnesses and bringing in any relevant materials and documents necessary to answer this question, and from that perhaps to provide some sort of basis on which we can build and move forward.

As an aside, the government has proposed an amendment to my motion which is effectively a new proposal, and that is that this be referred to a joint committee of both houses -- I do not have the wording in front of me; I am sure the government will speak about it -- and effectively that it inquire into what a great job the government has been doing investing in the train system. It is a good development that the government is now bringing references to committees to the chamber; normally we have to read about them in the Government Gazette.

The government still has that option if it really thinks that, as it has described it, is a worthy topic of inquiry and the government wants it to go to that committee. The government still has the power to do so. But I am putting forward quite a deliberate motion with quite a deliberate course of inquiry.

The government should not object to the composition of the committee in terms of numbers. The proportionality of other committees is something it has bleated about. Just to recap, the government won 43 per cent of the vote in the election and ended up with 57 per cent of the members of this Parliament. Nice job on reversing the ratio, but proportional representation to it now means that that 57 per cent is sacrosanct and becomes the ratio by which members are appointed to committees across the two houses. To look at it another way, the government won 41 per cent of the vote in the upper house, which gave it 19 of the 40 members. Another 127 votes in one seat would have given the government 20 out of 20.

Hon. M. P. Pakula -- Twenty out of 40.

Mr BARBER -- Twenty out of 40. Thank you, Mr Pakula. Mr Pakula is right on top of it. Forty-one per cent of the vote might have got the government 20 out of 40, at which point there would not have been any inquiries -- not like this. That is the government's definition of proportional representation.

Nevertheless I have taken on board its past issue, and this committee has been established with three government members, three coalition members and one Greens member. It does not include Mr Kavanagh. I have certainly consulted him on this; he can speak for himself, but quite frankly there is only one of him and he cannot be everywhere. However, I will not put words into his mouth on that one. If any member wants to know Mr Kavanagh's view on this, they can confer with him.

That will be the establishment of the committee. The government should rest assured that if this committee starts to go down a line of inquiry where it is looking as if both Labor and Liberal governments over the years are jointly to blame for the problem we now find ourselves with, there are six members on that committee versus my one. That could well be how it breaks down before this inquiry is over -- if it is established. We have not yet heard from the coalition whether it is supporting it.

In conclusion, when refranchising was announced Ms Kosky posed the question, 'Do I want to run a train system? I don't think so'. The questions this inquiry needs to answer are then 'Who is going to run it?' and 'Who is responsible?'. Mr Baillieu also made the statement that a collapse in basic services does not just happen overnight; it happens because of long-term neglect, massive waste and incompetence.

Mrs Peulich -- Ten years is a long time.

Mr BARBER -- Indeed! It does not happen overnight; it happens because of long-term neglect. I would like to see this inquiry pursue the source of that neglect, however far back it goes. Labor members on this committee will have the ability to question witnesses and call for documents that might attest to those particular issues, going back as far as we want to go. We can go back to the Cain government, the Kirner government and the Bracks government.

We can go back to the Bolte government if we want to. If members think that is where the source of the problem is, we will go back and have a look and then we will come forward and work out exactly where we are, who is running the system, whether this incompetence that Mr Baillieu referred to has become self-supporting within the system and how we are going to crack that open. I therefore hope all members of the house will support this motion.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) -- This morning I mentioned Groundhog Day debates, and we have got one again, but we have had a breakthrough. The breakthrough is that finally we have a proposal that a select committee be established by this house that has some respect for the decision of the voters at the last election. That is the first breakthrough we have had.

Mr Barber might like to talk about the fact that the government bleated about it, but we have just heard one heck of a bleat and an interesting interpretation of the voting system in Victoria which talked about primary votes instead of the system we have in this Parliament of preferential voting for the other chamber and proportional representation voting for this chamber.

It was an interesting twist from Mr Barber, but the fact is that up until this very night those on the other side of this chamber had a different view -- the Greens in coalition with the coalition, that grand coalition with the Liberal Party, The Nationals and often with Mr Kavanagh, but not always, because Mr Kavanagh came to the view that proportionality of these committees should be established way before other members on the other side. But finally we have at least that concession.

There are a couple of things I will say in my opening remarks about the select committee proposed by Mr Barber. In particular I point to the generality of the motion and the fact that in interpreting it we could go back to 1850, because there is no start date, to look at investment in the Victorian public transport system. Clearly that is a bit of nonsense. If any committee was going to embark on that, it would need a little bit longer than up until March next year to go through that process. But I welcome Mr Barber's invitation for us to go back to the Kennett period and to previous governments all the way back, as he suggested, to the big-spending, big-borrowing Bolte government era.

I guess we could take Mr Barber up on that, but a decision to establish a select committee ought be taken where there is a clear, concise issue that can be investigated and reported on in a fairly timely way. In my view to undertake an investigation of the general nature of what Mr Barber proposes requires some resources and time. It has been the government's consistent view regarding these kinds of inquiries that the appropriate thing to do is to send a reference, which this house can do, to a relevant joint committee that is appropriately resourced, already exists and has a secretariat and procedures in place to undertake investigative, policy-based inquiries, if you like, and that is what this involves. I thank Mr Barber for foreshadowing my proposed amendment, which I will now formally move. I move:

That all the words after 'That' be omitted with the view of inserting in their place 'the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee be required to consider, investigate and report on the investment provided by the Victorian government into metropolitan train and V/Line services since 1992.'.

The reason for putting a date on it is that I think it is a nonsense to go back to 1850. It is even a bit of a nonsense to go back to Henry Bolte, but any government coming into office inherits a legacy from its predecessor. I am sure members of the opposition are going to talk about the Kennett period and the legacy they reckon they inherited, but it is relevant to our Victorian public transport system for some simple reasons. Most people in Victoria know what sort of system the government inherited from the Kennett government. The Kennett government had closed railway lines, sacked workers, cut the funding and then privatised the system. It was a quadruple whammy, if you like, into the public transport system in Victoria.

First of all, you close the lines, then you get rid of the staff; then you cut the funding and then you flog it off.

Mr O'Donohue interjected.

Mr VINEY -- No wonder patronage of the public transport system was in massive decline when we came to government, because funding for the system had been decimated not only in terms of direct dollars but in terms of the people employed to run it. Mr O'Donohue is interjecting from the other side. During the last election campaign I remember a meet-the-candidates forum which was held at Maffra. At the time we were investing in the fast rail services to regional Victoria. Part of that meant the lines had to be temporarily closed and buses were running. Mr O'Donohue got up at that public meeting and said, 'You can't get a train east of Pakenham'. I got up after Mr O'Donohue and said, 'You know what?

I can remember a time when you could not get a train into Gippsland at all, because Jeff Kennett closed the service', and the entire audience of several hundred people started nodding and applauding. That is the kind of memory the people of country Victoria have. They know what the Kennett government did.

I have said to the house before that I happened to be in Bairnsdale doing some work in my consulting business on the day the last train was going into Bairnsdale. I was invited down to the Bairnsdale railway station for a community event, which was the community of Bairnsdale hijacking the train and refusing to let it leave, because it was the last train to go out of Bairnsdale. That is what happened. There were hundreds and hundreds of people in Bairnsdale on that day, and they were complaining about that. I remember seeing a little kid with a poster around his neck saying 'Jeff Kennett, you closed my kinder'. That is the kind of service cuts that that government was into at that time.

Let us consider what has been happening in the public transport system in Victoria since we came into office. There has been a massive growth in patronage. There has been a 40 per cent growth in train patronage in the past three years alone, and it was growing before that.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that patronage of the public transport system in Victoria is now about twice what it was when we came to office. About double the number of people now use the system every day, and it is still growing. There is a simple and good reason why it is growing: it is growing because there is a government in Victoria that believes in it and is investing in it.

There are problems with the system because of the growth.

I am sure there have been some other management issues, and I am happy for any committee -- be it a select committee or a joint investigatory committee -- to have a look at those issues. I have no problem with that, but let us be frank and realistic about what has been happening in our system here in Victoria. We have the Victorian transport plan -- a $38 billion plan to provide capacity for a growing city and a growing state. We have $1 billion worth of rail projects already under way. In recent months we have had the Clifton Hill-Westgarth line duplication and the Cranbourne stabling.

Mr Barber -- Forty years overdue!

Mr VINEY -- I do not think the Bracks and Brumby government was in office 40 years ago. In fact 40 years ago I was 14, so I was not even eligible to vote

let alone be here and be responsible as a government member for what has been happening in the system then.

Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.

Mr VINEY -- There you are -- Mr Pakula tells me he was in his bassinette.

We have platform extensions at North Melbourne. We have the new passenger information displays and we have new sidings at Craigieburn -- these projects are under way. We have the refurbishment of the Hitachi fleet. There have been 400 additional services introduced since 2008.

Mr Lenders -- How many?

Mr VINEY -- Four hundred, Mr Lenders.

There has been a reversal of the Clifton Hill loop. There have been more Werribee services travelling directly to Flinders Street and additional train maintenance staff -- investing in the system and investing in the people who run it. We have additional staff on platforms. We have new bus routes, and since 1999 we have added almost 1000 extra metropolitan services, including, as I said, 400 in 2008.

Over the next two years we will be investing even further in the system. More platform staff will be recruited. There will be track reconfiguration, new stabling, the arrival of the first 38 X'trapolis six-car trains at the end of this year and substantially increased maintenance funding for the metropolitan network -- at least a 40 per cent boost to the annual maintenance spend from the end of this year.

We have been recruiting additional drivers every year.

We have the Craigieburn station crossovers project, which will begin at the start of 2010, the Laverton short-starter project, the Westall short-starter project, the Eltham stabling and signalling upgrade in 2010, the commencement of works on the electrification of the Sydenham-Sunbury line and the extension of the Epping line to South Morang, the commencement of planning for the metro rail tunnel and the regional rail link in 2009.

Let us have a look at V/Line. I have to say that I am a frequent user of the V/Line service from Drouin and Warragul to Melbourne and back. What has happened there has been part of the biggest regional rail investment in 120 years. We have delivered the regional fast rail corridors at a cost of $750 million. I have to say regional Victorians have responded to this in record numbers. Sometimes when you get on the train at Drouin it is hard to find a seat. As a result of that, we have been investing in more rolling stock -- bigger trains to carry more passengers because of the increased demand.

That is including the V/Locity carriages. Nine of the 54 carriages have already been delivered, and, as I understand it, we are delivering new carriages at the rate of one per month.

In addition to this investment the Victorian transport plan provides funding for another 20 V/Line train carriages. The plan also provides for refurbishment of carriages, including new air conditioning and upgrades to the systems. This of course is on top of the $13.2 million program to refurbish the 21 Sprinter trains and upgrade the 55 H-class carriages by the end of this year. Ten Sprinters and 15 H-class carriages have been refurbished and returned to service.

We have opened lines that were closed by the coalition. We have opened the Bairnsdale line and we have opened the Ararat line. We bought back the privatised track.

I must say to the house that people in country Victoria have good memories for this stuff. They know what the coalition did, and they know it would do it again because it does not have the fundamental belief in the system that is essential for the commitment of massive investment. If you do not believe in the system and if you do not believe in public transport, you are not going make all the hard decisions to allocate public funds to it. It just does not follow. You have to believe in something in order for the government to do all the hard work -- as Mr Lenders will well know -- in a budget process to put the bucks in. That is what has to happen. If you do not believe in it, you will not invest in it.

I am more than happy for Parliament to investigate this system. My amendment proposes a joint investigatory committee process because that has worked so well for the Parliament of Victoria in the past. Research conducted into the joint parliamentary committees in Victoria has established that they are some of the best committees operating in parliaments across Australia.

One needs only to look at an often-quoted example of some of the work done by the Road Safety Committee to see that it has helped reduce Victoria's road toll. It is the joint committees that have delivered solid policy change in Victorian policy making because their recommendations are researched and respected. It has not been upper house select committees that have delivered that policy change.

This is a political stunt by the Greens, in cahoots with their mates in the coalition. The number of times the Greens have voted with the Liberals and The Nationals was running at somewhere around 67 per cent, although I do not know what percentage it is running at now.

Mr Lenders interjected.

Mr VINEY -- Mr Lenders advises me that it is up to 71 per cent. That does not surprise me because we sit in here, week after week, and watch them vote together.

When I interjected during Mr Barber's speech earlier -- and it was most unparliamentary of me to do so -- about the fact that they had already done the deal, the coalition said, 'How do you know that? We have not done any deal'; but I am prepared to bet almost anything that the coalition will support this motion by Mr Barber. I would be pretty safe there, and it is my view that the deal includes making Mr Barber chair of the select committee.

That is my opinion, and I will be interested to see how that vote goes in their first meeting, because I reckon that is what is at the base of it. Mr Barber is seeking a platform to make his political points.

Mr Lenders -- On his way to becoming mayor of Castlemaine!

Mr VINEY -- Yes, that is right. But what we have is the process of a select committee being established, because it is a political process. It is not a serious and genuine investigation. It is not about getting to the basis of a good, solidly supported, public transport system. It would be a different story if it was about the coalition being prepared to put on the record its solid support for public transport in Victoria and its absolute commitment to supporting the government in funding a public transport system, its commitment to investing in more staff, its commitment to keeping those country rail lines open and its commitment to the maintenance program.

My understanding is that the member for Polwarth in another place, Mr Mulder, is the public transport spokesperson for the opposition, and that he is on record as saying he is not prepared to commit to a single thing in the Victorian public transport plan. 'Not a thing' is my understanding of what Mr Mulder said on ABC radio 774, so there, unveiled, is the true belief of the opposition in public transport. It does not believe in it, it is not prepared to commit to the Victorian public transport plan, and this proposal for a select committee is purely a political stunt.

If the opposition were absolutely committed to a good public transport system in Victoria which delivered for Victorians, which supported the 40 per cent increase in patronage, the almost doubling since we came to office of the total number of passengers using the system, the massive 40 per cent increase in the patronage of the Gippsland line alone since we invested in the fast rail system, then it would be prepared to send this reference to the joint investigatory committee, because that is where, in Victoria's parliamentary democracy, the hard policy work is being done and where the great gains have been made in areas such as road safety.

It is in that sort of solid work that we can get some gains out of this, and not out of a stunt to establish a select committee made up of members from this house alone. Members opposite, and Mr Barber, well know that the resources and the systems available to the joint committees are already in place. All the work can be done simply and easily by a joint committee.

We are more than happy to have an investigation into the public transport system in Victoria. We are exceptionally proud of our record. We reckon the opposition in particular will be hugely embarrassed by any such investigation, because it will expose the opposition's absolute failure to commit to the system, and it will expose the fact that it does not understand the system.

Mr O'Donohue did not understand the system, or what the opposition did to the people of Gippsland when he stood up and said at the Maffra public meeting which was held before the last election, 'You cannot get a train past Pakenham at the moment'. The whole audience was just about in fits of laughter because they could remember what Jeff Kennett did to the Bairnsdale line.

We are more than happy to have an investigation. We believe in the public transport system.

We believe a proper investigation and a proper inquiry by a well-resourced joint house committee, such as the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee, will get to the truth of the issues in public transport, because it will expose weakness in the opposition and demonstrate the solid commitment of the government to a system that Victorians are voting for with their feet. That is why the number of passengers has increased so dramatically.

It is quite interesting to note that yet again the Greens are deciding that they are interested in political stunts. They are not seriously interested in the issues of public transport; they are interested in a political process through a select committee. I urge the house to think carefully about setting up political stunts in areas such as service delivery which Victorians hold so dear.

If the coalition is serious, it will support the amendment and send a reference off to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee, which can have a decent, well-resourced look at those services. That is the way members of the house can show that they really do believe in public transport.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) -- I am pleased to make a contribution to Mr Barber's motion to set up a select committee to inquire into the factors leading to and the causes of failures in the provision of metropolitan and V/Line train services. He has eloquently covered in his contribution the serious issues within our system. The fact that our system is unreliable and in many cases dangerous is of great concern.

I catch public transport, as do many of my constituents, and I know from the strong representations they make that there is a serious issue with the public transport system -- our trams, our trains, our buses and indeed the V/Line services that many in the country rely upon.

This motion calls for an inquiry into the factors leading to and the causes of failures in the provision of metropolitan and V/Line train services. As the lynchpin of most of our public transport system, the train services are worthy of investigation in the ways that are outlined.

The government's failure to invest in infrastructure over the past 10 years has left the system in a diabolical state. No Victorian can have been left in any doubt about the failure of our system over the January summer period. The system was in meltdown, in chaos, when hundreds and in many cases thousands of Victorians were left stranded by a public transport system that simply was not up to scratch. After 10 years of neglect and failure to invest, 10 years of failure to make the decisions to expand the network, this government stands condemned for its failure to do what is necessary with public transport.

It is very clear that the extension of the system out into key areas on the periphery of the city has been fundamentally neglected, despite promises by Labor in 1999 to extend train services to areas like South Morang.

I want to say something here about the performance of the current Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky. Her performance has been of a very low standard, and her commitment to the job has been inadequate. The email that was circulated in which she flicked the complaints about the public transport system off to the department showed very starkly her lack of commitment to and concern for the system. I think that across this January period we have seen a minister in crisis, a minister afraid to deal with the system properly and a minister who appeared unable to put in place systems and arrangements that would get a good result for Victoria.

Service standards have declined.

The minister has talked as recently as last week about her desire to rip seats out of trains -- to unbolt them -- to make more space in trains. I have to say that this idea that the solution to the congestion and the overcrowding is to rip seats out of trains is a very strange way of viewing the problem. It seems to me that a properly resourced system, with resources that would provide adequate numbers of trains and adequate capacity, would be a much better way to go about dealing with the congestion and the overcrowding rather than simply ripping seats out of trains. What a bizarre thing we have heard from this minister.

I could go on for a very long time, but I am conscious of the hour and I am conscious of the need to move reasonably swiftly at this point in the evening. I really just want to put some key things on the record, but I cannot resist giving just one example -- one pointer -- of the failure of the system.

On the night of Friday, 6 February, I was astounded and ashamed of Victoria when the Premier of New South Wales, Nathan Rees, led off a story on Lateline with an attack on the Victorian government's management of its public transport system and its failure to invest in infrastructure. He said, 'In New South Wales rail lines don't buckle like they do in Victoria. We put more resources into infrastructure and more resources into concrete sleepers. In New South Wales our rails don't buckle like they do in Victoria'.

What an extraordinary statement from a New South Wales Premier, and what a damning indictment of Premier John Brumby and Minister Lynne Kosky.

New South Wales is the mendicant state of the whole commonwealth and the state that has perhaps the worst record for infrastructure, although I know the government here in Victoria is working very hard to try to match that record, and there was the New South Wales Premier -- one of the most hopeless premiers in the country -- lecturing the Victorian government, the Victorian public transport minister and the Victorian Premier on their incompetence and idiocy in the way they are running the transport system in Victoria. What an extraordinary indictment of Victoria and Victoria's capacity to build on infrastructure. I suggest to those opposite that they go out and get a clip of that program. I think that they too will be ashamed to see the New South Wales Premier attacking the Victorian government's failure to invest in infrastructure and concrete sleepers to ensure that its rails do not buckle when it gets hot.

The other points I want to make here are very straightforwardly about the shape of this proposed committee. I believe it is preferable that each party be represented on select committees formed in this chamber. I believe that is the ideal approach. I accept on this occasion that Mr Kavanagh does not have the capacity to be on every committee. No person has the superhuman capacity to be in many places at once and to discharge committee duties all around the countryside. There is a limit, and I understand that for those reasons he does not necessarily wish to be on this committee.

I am very much of the opinion that the chamber needs an inquiry into the train systems in this state, and in those circumstances I believe the select committee arrangements that are proposed here are something that the Liberal Party and The Nationals would also accept.

I believe the issue of committee resources is a significant one.

As Mr Viney pointed out, select committees face the challenge of resources, and the government has chosen to heavily resource the all-party joint committees, of which the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee that Mr Viney has selected in his amendment is one -- and a very good one. I make the point that the government's choice to resource those committees has been in part at the expense of the upper house committees. I believe there needs to be some rebalancing of those arrangements, and I know those discussions will occur in the Standing Orders Committee over the next period. In that context there will need to be some significant rebalancing of the committees.

I also make the point that this committee is time limited to March 2010, which is sufficiently distant to enable a considerable opportunity for the committee to debate what is needed and to take the evidence that is required to ensure that the committee is able to get to the bottom of why the government has so transparently failed to put in place a suitable V/Line and metropolitan train service.

In conclusion I want to also make the point that the government will need to assist the committee -- and it should do so openly and honestly -- with the information that it requires. Select committees have repeatedly faced the difficulty of obtaining information from this government, and I believe this government is committed to a policy of secrecy and closing down the flow of information to committees. In those circumstances I am hopeful that the government may change its pattern but concerned that in fact it may not. With those remarks, I look forward to the chamber supporting Mr Barber's motion.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) -- I am pleased to make a brief contribution to debate on this motion and especially to commend to the house the amendment Mr Viney has proposed, to refer this issue to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee. I say that on the basis that the year before last it was mooted that there be a select committee to look into level crossings across the state, and a motion to that effect was to be moved by the then Leader of the Opposition, Philip Davis, but it was decided to refer that particular reference to the Road Safety Committee, and in the end that was done. I have to say that the work the Road Safety Committee did on that particular reference relating to level crossings was more than bipartisan, and it came up with some more than fair recommendations on level crossings and the concerns that were addressed by the committee's terms of the reference. In saying that, I recommend that one of the joint select committees, in particular the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee, should deal with this reference rather than it going to a select committee.

I would like to touch on the second paragraph of Mr Barber's motion, which proposes that there be three members of the government on the committee. I know the Greens have a policy of proportional representation, and I am glad they finally achieved that in a motion moved by one of their members rather than in motions establishing select committees moved by other parties which they supported.

Mr Tee -- It is progress.

Mr LEANE -- It is progress, and I congratulate them for that. The first paragraph of the motion relates to the guts of what the inquiry is to look at, which are 'the factors leading to and causes of failures in the provision of metropolitan and V/Line train services'.

That is an interesting reference, because in talking about failures in the provision of train services we acknowledge that sometimes there are interruptions to those services. There are sensitive issues that would be fleshed out in an inquiry, such as people jumping in front of trains. That incurs delays. I am not too sure what the answer to that is, but if something can be fleshed out about that it would be a great move.

Other factors are also involved. Was it a failure in the provision of services when three weeks ago we had three of the hottest days on record, which had an adverse effect on power supplies? Is it a failure of the train or tram systems when they lose power on those days? What qualifies as a failure for train services?

It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party is supporting this motion. Has the system failed when there has been 40 per cent growth in patronage in the last three years? One of the pillars or the ethos of the Liberal Party is a free market. The free market says that if you have a product that people want, you are succeeding. If you have a product that people really want, the take-up of that product will increase. That has occurred with these services, as I have just indicated. Can we say the system is a failure when people are voting with their feet and taking up the option of using the system more and more every week.

Mr Viney's amendment proposes that the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee be required to consider and investigate these services. The level crossing issues were dealt with by the Road Safety Committee. It went to great lengths in investigating that reference.

I commend all the members of that committee and its executive for its bipartisan approach to the issue which ensured that the report was comprehensive.

As I said earlier in my contribution, there are other issues that impact on the provision of services, and I am not sure they represent a failure of the system. I had the opportunity of travelling in a train going to Ballarat. I took it in turn to sit with the driver. The train was travelling at 140 kilometres an hour -- --

Mr D. Davis interjected.

Mr LEANE -- You are right, Mr Davis, I was keen to grab the levers, but I did not because I was scared. When you are in the front of a train that is travelling at more than 140 kilometres an hour the scenery can be a blur, especially when you go around bends.

I feel for the drivers who are confronted by people jumping in front of their trains for whatever reason. I would argue that is not a failure of the drivers or the system. There are some things that are outside the control of the rail operator.

I understand the Liberal Party is very keen on the establishment of this select committee. We have seen footage of the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Mr Baillieu, and the shadow Minister for Public Transport in the Assembly, Mr Mulder, travelling on a train. When we had the opportunity to take the train to Ballarat, Mr Mulder went by car. He wimped out. We got the train up and back, but Mr Mulder took his car and did not take the train.

Mr Barber -- I wasn't even invited.

Mr LEANE -- I am not talking about you, Mr Barber, I am talking about Mr Mulder. I am sure that if the select committee gets up, you will catch the train.

Mr Koch -- Mr Mulder has been on plenty of trains.

Mr LEANE -- I have to say on that day Mr Mulder drove his car up and back. I am glad to see he is catching the train now and trying to get his head in the paper with his leader, whom he is trying to unseat.

In conclusion, I commend Mr Viney's amendment to the house. It is a common-sense amendment, and it is an approach that has been taken before and was more than successful.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- A primary reason for the existence of this house is to scrutinise the government, and I think the proposed committee will do just that. As has been pointed out by Mr Viney and by Mr Leane, there have been examples of joint committees dominated by one party that have achieved good results, including the Road Safety Committee and its inquiry into level crossings. Both of those matters are not partisan in nature or party political issues. It seems to me that is probably why they worked, despite the committee being dominated by one party. We hope that committees that are dominated by one party or another might determine in an objective and fair manner and reach balanced conclusions. However, in my experience that hope would be a very vain one.

No doubt the government has had achievements in public transport, including reintroducing country services, as Mr Viney said, and perhaps increasing patronage, which was a point made by Mr Leane.

I would be confident that a balanced committee would recognise those achievements as well as pointing out areas where improvements still need to be made.

I support Mr Barber's motion proposing the select committee, and for the reasons I have outlined I am unable to support Mr Viney's proposed amendment.

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) -- I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this motion, as public transport is an important issue for the community. It is an important issue that this house should be debating, and Mr Leane articulated some of the issues we need to consider. But the debate should not be conducted in the way that has been proposed in this motion. The motion is too broad, it is ill considered, it is vague, it is too general and its drafting is lazy. It lacks what you would hope for and expect in these sorts of motions where you have got a careful consideration of the issues and a degree of rigour.

This is particularly important when you are dealing with an issue as important as public transport.

The motion, because of its vagueness and generality, lacks the accountability that the taxpayer would expect from this house. There is no focus and no direction. As indicated by Mr Kavanagh, it is the role of this house to scrutinise, but this motion really provides a blank cheque. There is no accountability and there is no transparency. The fatal flaw in this motion is the failure to provide a time frame to reference the work of the committee. On face value what the reference requires is for the committee to investigate the development of rail in Victoria since the time Victoria was a colony. The terms of reference are so broad that we are looking at rail since the time of federation. I am not sure that an academic review of the history of rail over the last 150 or so years is critical at this stage. While that historical overview might be important, it is not really the best use of taxpayers money.

As Mr Viney indicated, if we go down that merry road of having a look at the historical developments in Victorian rail, I am sure we will stop and investigate the legacy of the Kennett government, which is an important part of that history. As indicated by Mr Viney, no small amount of time in terms of the history of rail will be devoted to looking at those passenger services that were closed -- to Maryborough, Bairnsdale, Ararat and Gippsland, to name but a few. Again, if you go through and look at that historical overview, you will note the $200 million that the Kennett government took out of rail every year.

But this house should not commit to what is a purely historical exercise. When I look at the motion and the way it has been drafted I suspect it is really about those opposite looking for a role. It is about the opposition trying to get on board the debate -- which is an important debate and I do not blame it for wanting to get on board -- on public transport.

You get the impression through the motion that a very wide net was deliberately cast, and indeed that was stated in the contribution made by Mr Barber. But this house should not be party to some broad, desperate, fishing expedition nor to the exercise that would occur.

When you look at it you see that the terms of reference require, rightly of course, that those terms of reference be advertised. That will occur, but because of the breadth of the terms of reference all you will get is this historical overview where the history buffs will reanalyse the failures of the system, reanalyse whether we should have had electrification earlier in the 1920s and reanalyse the history of the underground loop. All those issues and benchmarks were important, but again I am not sure they really help the debate today.

As I said, when you look at the depth and breadth of the motion you see that there is perhaps a degree of wishful thinking and even desperation on the part of those who want to get their foot in the door and be part of the public transport debate. I suspect the opposition is worried that it is being left behind. I suspect that it sees the government has a $38 billion transport plan and that, through the minister, it has already announced in January that there will be an independent investigation into rail service delivery which will look at cancellations, the causes of the cancellations and ways to minimise future cancellations. When you look at the comprehensive picture the government has drawn, the progress it has made and the vision it has going forward, it is difficult for those opposite to find their way into the debate, and hence we see this very broad motion before us. But I do not think it is appropriate that we be dragged into this historical fiasco. I do not think it is appropriate that we try to find flaws.

I think if you want to get involved in the debate and if you are serious, a bit more work needs to be done. I think you need to have a bit more rigour. There need to be some ideas and policies and a framework within which the committee ought to operate. I do not think this kite-flying exercise dignifies the opposition or this house, and I would be opposed to the motion.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- Just briefly in reply, I think Mr Viney has made the government's position pretty clear. Resources are only available to committees that it controls and references sent to those committees should be innocuous, but apart from that it is clear Mr Viney already knows the conclusions this committee will draw. He has a clear view of all the issues, but I think he would be one of the few in Victoria who is so confident, and I wonder how his speech would go down at Southern Cross station on a stinking hot day with hour after hour of cancellations and contradictory announcements coming over the speaker.

Free ice-creams did something to pacify commuters on that particular day, but nothing Mr Viney said earlier would have done so.

In relation to the -- --

Mr Viney interjected.

Mr BARBER -- The issue of bipartisanship is one I fully expect to be alive in this committee, because it is a bipartisan record of failure in the running of the transport system only brought to light by the high growth in patronage that showed the inherent weakness of this rickety old system that has been run in that way for years.

If relation to the time frame, this is about the causes of the current and recent failures to service delivery, and they are completely obvious. You have only to go back to the newspapers from January. As to when the causes and factors leading to those failures arose, I do not know.

This week we have again got restrictions on speed due to braking failures, which, as I mentioned in the opening, relate to trains purchased by a previous contractor who has now gone. While the government talks about transparency in relation to this, we have been requesting over many weeks that the documents that have been provided to the franchisees be provided to this house. There can be no question of commercial confidentiality, let alone executive privilege, there. Potential bidders have been given this document, but this house will not be.

Clearly the government is prepared to be more forthcoming with the operators than it is with the users, and that tells us something about its order of priorities.

I hope, though, that government members on this committee are interested in pursuing the causes as well as the solutions to failures, which are as obvious to members of the public as they could possibly be, so I urge all members to support this motion.

House divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.