Senator FOREMAN(5.26 p.m.) —The committee report on the Brew report and on the continuing role of the Commonwealth in the Australian rail industry is an important document. Its significance is not based upon any profound answer that it has for the future of the rail industry, although it may be a good starting point. Its importance is based on the fact that it opens up the debate about the future of our nation's transport infrastructure and the role for rail within it.

It is the hope of those of us in the Labor Party that the government will reconsider its position in light of the flaws that have been found in the Brew report, and ensure that a plan for rail is developed which allows for significant consultation with all interested parties. We are not oblivious to the problems that confront AN and, indeed, National Rail. In fact, the Brew report does pull together many of the economic issues that must be considered.

The problems with the report by John Brew, commissioned by Minister Sharp, relate to the solutions that he sees for rail, and the way that the government has dealt with this report. The Brew report was not released in a way that allowed for scrutiny and public debate. A small amount of information was released, but much of the Brew report was kept secret. The delay in full scrutiny of the report allowed a great deal of anxiety to develop within the AN work force.

It can be said that, given the contents of the Brew report, this anxiety was justified. But I think there is certainly a principle of openness and honesty that has been betrayed by this government. It is essential that the Australian people have an opportunity to examine the issues that were explored by the Brew report. It is important that people can see the shortcomings of the findings, and the limitations of the terms of reference.

In the hearings I discovered that the commissioning of the Brew report was welcomed by the mayor of Port Augusta, Joy Baluch. But the subsequent investigation by John Brew did not include any discussions with the city council or any consideration of the interests of the affected communities. What point was there in having an inquiry which does not canvass the views of the work force and the affected communities?

Rail and associated industries, and the people who work in these industries, face great uncertainty. Australian National has undergone much change—it had to. The rail unions were amongst the first to recognise that the future of rail depended on more efficiency and a well trained and forward thinking work force.

The workers that I have spoken to over a number of years have always been willing to accept the need for change. They have always been enthusiastic about explaining the developments in their operations to those who have visited the shop floor, and those of us with a strong interest in the maintenance of industry have long been impressed with the commitment of these workers. My association with rail workers in South Australia began long before I entered this place. As secretary of the Vehicle Builders Union, I worked for union members who built and maintained carriages in the Commonwealth railways, the South Australian railways and later AN.

Workers in Port Augusta feel particularly vulnerable. Despite the views of the mayor, privatisation will be a real gamble for the people who work in this rail town. Many of the families have spent their entire lives working in this industry. The railways have been part of this region since last century and have provided stable employment for generations of Port Augusta, Stirling North, Quorn and Wilmington residents. So the implications of Mr Brew's recommendations are immense for workers in South Australia and Tasmania. The recommendations relating to the South Australian workshops, the closing of unprofitable lines and the privatisation of rail are the areas of most concern.

The government has approached the issue of AN privatisation with a great deal of ideological zeal. They have not proved that there is a case for the sale of Australian National; they have merely set AN up for a predetermined fate. For a start the terms of reference were designed to make this matter a purely financial one. The aim was to isolate the debate about the viability of AN from the effect that its departure would have on the lives of the people and the economy of South Australia. The single-minded pursuit of a bottom line outcome for the AN business denies the long-term plans that the previous government put in place and was committed to.

Management received criticism in the hearings for exacerbating the problems within AN. It seems unfortunate that AN management accepted the Brew report and its implications without trying to explain its own actions that have led to this situation. The concerns about the way that Port Augusta operations were managed from Adelaide and the lack of communication between AN and the Port Augusta community should be noted with concern. I am aware of other concerns over AN management which have been raised by concerned constituents in my electorate office. I trust that AN is taking note of the issues that have been raised during this inquiry.

Unemployment is the major economic problem that this nation faces. This is at its most severe in regional Australia and amongst the work force that has been trained to work in a particular industry such as the rail industry. This government is showing no commitment to unemployed people. The lack of initiatives to tackle unemployment in the 1997-98 budget shows that this will not change in the foreseeable future. Unemployment in the northern and western regions of South Australia is at 9.3 per cent. Youth unemployment is over 30 per cent. A positive response to unemployment by the Howard government is needed and this response must include a commitment in real and long-term jobs for regional Australia.

There is a great deal of concern out there in the community about the apparent desire of this government to privatise industries like AN for the sake of it. There is no demonstrated need for privatisation in the case of Australian National. It is true that some feel that maybe things will be better or different if AN is sold off, but I believe that this is hardly a sound and rational reason for changing the ownership of an important industry in South Australia and Tasmania.

In essence it is the view of the majority on the committee that the government must carefully plan its response to the questions that arise from the debate on our rail system. There must be a land transport strategy that defines the role of this form of transport. It is not in the best interests of our community to allow for a hotchpotch approach which is based on some rigid concept of competition. It is not appropriate to just accept the experiences of other nations when our circumstances are so unique, our distances great and our historical experiences so different. I hope that this inquiry sparks a real assessment of where we are going in terms of the development of a future for rail.