THE Inland Rail project is offering billion-dollar positives for the nation’s economy.
When the $9-billion Inland Rail project was announced there was a flurry of Coalition politicians in front of the cameras and in the headlines revelling in positive press.
But where are the politicians now, as landholders, the Australian Rail Track Corporation and even NSW Farmers slug through a vexing process to decide the exact route and how to go about building the project?
Land access agreements are difficult to negotiate because they are the foundation stones of a project.
That the developer can gain access to the route is a fundamental requirement if the project is to succeed.
Major infrastructure projects crossing privately owned land require much clarity about each party’s responsibility, because a one-size-fits-all template is doomed from the start. That even NSW Farmers’ own legal advisers have recommended a “template” that more reflects agreements between landholders and mining companies must set alarm bells ringing.
That NSW Farmers policy director Robert Hardie insists “this is not a mining project” and “not every property will have a test pit” and “not every property will have a drilling rig on it” suggests that some properties certainly will host test pits and drilling rigs.
In that instance it seems this template will not suffice to protect landholders.
Terms such as “reasonable endeavours” are grist for the mill to lawyers.
“ARTC will not revegetate the site, but may following agreement with the landowner temporarily fence the site for safety and vegetation regrowth.
“In the event of dispute regarding damage to the site ARTC will engage with the landowner to resolve such a dispute.”
RELATED READING:
These statements are, in the words of senior counsel Ian Coleman, “an agreement to agree, but agree to what?”
That is what would have to be decided in court, and again Mr Coleman offers, “who’s going to have the time and money to force an agreement?”
Surely it is best to approach a project the scale of Inland Rail in a transparent manner from the outset?
Surely what the project will truly cost should be accepted by the developers, in this case the ARTC and Australia’s politicians?
