Tasmania Infrastructure Report Card 2010 by Engineers Australia

www.engineersaustralia.org.au/irctas

Tasmania Infrastructure Report Card 2010 ISBN 978-0858259621 ÂŠ Engineers Australia, 2010, May All rights reserved. Other than brief extracts, no part of this publication may be produced in any form without the written consent of the publisher. The Report Cards can be downloaded from www.engineersaustralia.org.au.

Acknowledgements This publication was only possible with the support of members of Engineers Australia, other building and infrastructure professionals, and representatives from government departments, industry and business and professional associations. Tasmania Infrastructure Report Card Committee Grant Atherton, FIEAust CPEng (Chair) Dan OToole, FIEAust Henk Kremer, FIEAust CPEng Report Card contributors Alan Coote, MIEAust CPEng Andrew Boon, MIEAust CPEng Chris Marlow, MIEAust CPEng Keith Midson, MIEAust CPEng Damian Devlin, BEng Tasmania Division staff Geoff Harper, Director National Project Director Project Director: Leanne Hardwicke, Director, National and International Policy, Engineers Australia Consultant Principal Author: Athol Yates MIEAust, Australian Security Research Centre Project Team: Professor Priyan Mendis, FIEAust CPEng, Henry Pike, Barbara Coe, and Trudy Southgate

Engineers Australia Tasmania Division Royal Engineers Building 2 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000 Tel: 03 6234 2228 Fax: 03 6234 2216 www.engineersaustralia.org.au

Australian Security Research Centre International Affairs House Level 1 21 Thesiger Court Deakin ACT 2605 Tel: 02 6161 5143 Fax: 02 6161 5144 www.securityresearch.org.au

CONTENTS CommuniquĂŠ............................................................................................................... i Ratings summary ...................................................................................................... v Overview..................................................................................................................... 1 State-wide issues ......................................................................................................................2 Cross sector challenges ............................................................................................................4

Transport .................................................................................................................... 7 1

Roads .................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................11 1.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................11 1.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................18 1.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................23 1.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................24

Rail ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................25 2.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................25 2.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................32 2.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................38 2.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................38

Ports ...................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................39 3.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................39 3.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................45 3.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................46 3.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................47

Airports ................................................................................................................. 49 4.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................49 4.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................49 4.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................55 4.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................57 4.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................57

Water ........................................................................................................................ 59 5

Potable water ........................................................................................................ 63 5.1 Summary .........................................................................................................................63 5.2 Infrastructure overview ....................................................................................................63 5.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................70 5.4 Future challenges ............................................................................................................72 5.5 Report Card rating ...........................................................................................................73

Contents

Wastewater............................................................................................................ 75 6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 75 6.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................... 75 6.3 Performance ................................................................................................................... 81 6.4 Future challenges ........................................................................................................... 83 6.5 Report Card rating .......................................................................................................... 84

Stormwater ............................................................................................................ 85 7.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 85 7.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................... 85 7.3 Performance ................................................................................................................... 91 7.4 Future challenges ........................................................................................................... 92 7.5 Report Card rating .......................................................................................................... 93

Irrigation ................................................................................................................ 95 8.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 95 8.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................... 95 8.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 104 8.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 104 8.5 Report Card rating ........................................................................................................ 104

Energy .................................................................................................................... 107 9

Electricity ............................................................................................................ 109 9.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 109 9.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 109 9.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 123 9.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 129 9.5 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 131

Gas....................................................................................................................... 133 10.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 133 10.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 133 10.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 139 10.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 141 10.5 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 141

Telecommunications ............................................................................................ 143 11.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 143 11.2 Infrastructure overview ................................................................................................. 144 11.3 Performance ................................................................................................................. 153 11.4 Future challenges ......................................................................................................... 157 11.5 Report Card Rating ....................................................................................................... 157

Appendices............................................................................................................ 159 Appendix A: Rating methodology ............................................................................... 160 Appendix B: Units and acronyms ................................................................................ 162 Appendix C: Glossary .................................................................................................. 164 Appendix D: References .............................................................................................. 168

COMMUNIQUÉ Tasmania must have adequate infrastructure such as transportation and communications systems, water and energy supply if it is to have a viable economy and to support the economic, environmental and social aspirations of its current population and future generations. In 2005, Engineers Australia took the initiative to raise community awareness about the importance of infrastructure in the 2005 Tasmanian Infrastructure Report Card. This report gave a strategic overview of various infrastructure sectors and provided an independent assessment of the fitness for purpose of Tasmania’s key assets. The Report Card found that much of Tasmania’s infrastructure required critical changes to be fit for its current and future demands. Five years on, we are again examining the state of Tasmania’s infrastructure to see what progress has been made and what needs to happen in the future if Tasmania is to live up to its potential as an island community with a unique natural and cultural environment and relatively prosperous lifestyle. Overall, Tasmania’s infrastructure is stressed, and is mostly rated as either adequate or poor. The 2010 Report Card recognises that there have been some improvements in potable water and wastewater infrastructure since 2005. We have seen major structural and regulatory reform in the potable and wastewater sector and construction and replacement of new reservoirs, storage dams and pipelines, such as the new reservoir at Mornington and upgrades of Swansea’s potable supply system. The Huon Valley Regional Water Scheme will improve the quality of water for Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston and Cygnet, as will the replacement of the Distillery Creek water treatment plant for the people of Launceston. Wastewater treatment facilities have been upgraded in Smithton and Ulverstone, and the new plant at Cambridge will allow the decommissioning of five old-style plants. The challenge will be to ensure that planning regimes are put in place for the long term and that funding is maintained in this area. Areas where the ratings remained the same, such as stormwater and electricity, indicate that significant infrastructure works have been completed in these areas. There has been an improvement in stormwater quality across the State with the installation of many gross pollutant traps, and guidelines have been developed to assist local government, developers and the construction industry to fulfil their stormwater responsibilities. Funding for future works is an issue for stormwater, as is the maintenance of expertise in this area. The commissioning of Basslink and the Aurora Energy Tamar Valley power station, and upgrades to transmission and distribution systems have been major developments for electricity in Tasmania. Ensuring ongoing generation capacity and addressing the vulnerability of Basslink as the only transmission line connecting Tasmania to the mainland will be issues that need to be addressed in the future. In examining transport infrastructure, State roads were the only sector to maintain its rating due mainly to the backlog of work being partly addressed. Local and national roads i

CommuniquĂŠ

and ports have lost ground since the last report. While some major upgrades and bypass work have been completed or are underway, there has been a deterioration in the quality of roads due to increases in freight usage and pavements exceeding their design life. To improve the rating for the future, there will need to be better planning, funding and delivery of road infrastructure. Port infrastructure appears to be adequate at present in terms of capacity, but integrated land use, and transport planning outcomes will have a substantial effect on capacity in the future. This 2010 report includes a rating for rail, airports, irrigation, and gas, which were not rated in 2005. While telecommunications was not rated in 2005, it was rated in a separate report in 2007. Of these, rail received a fail rating on the basis that Tasmanian rail is inadequate for current and future purposes. While there has been some rail infrastructure work carried out recently, or currently underway, there is no plan for the future of Tasmanian rail, and the level of investment to provide an effective and efficient rail service would be very substantial. Tasmanian airports fared better, recognising that infrastructure has improved considerably in recent times. Gas infrastructure is also recognised as being in good shape, but is vulnerable due to the single transmission pipeline. As well, expansion of the distribution system has ceased. Irrigation has seen significant projects completed or in progress, including the Meander Dam and associated pipelines, together with increased effluent reuse schemes, but faces the challenge of long-term sustainability, for instance, soil salinity problems. The planning, funding and infrastructure capacity and condition of telecommunications infrastructure achieved an adequate rating. This recognises the planning and funding of the National Broadband Network in Tasmania, as well as the introduction of competition into the Tasmanian market. Poor coverage in some areas will need to be addressed in the future. Ratings are given below for the current and past Tasmanian and National Report Cards. Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads overall National roads State roads Local roads

CC+ C D

Not rated BC D+

C C+ C C-

Not rated C CD

Rail

Not rated

C-

D-

Ports

B-

C+

Airports

Not rated

Potable water

B-

C Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

B-

Wastewater

C- Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

C+

C-

Stormwater

C-

Irrigation

B-

Not rated

C-

D-

Electricity

B-

C+

B-

Gas

Not rated

C+

Telecommunications

C+

Not rated

Communiqué

Inadequate infrastructure has major economic and social consequences. Engineers Australia remains concerned that:  Critical changes are required to Tasmania’s infrastructure to make it fit for current and future needs  Long-term integrated infrastructure planning is missing, as is transparent advisory and decision-making mechanisms.  Given its small and rapidly ageing population compared to other States, infrastructure funding will always be a critical issue.  Skills shortages in the engineering, construction and planning disciplines will continue to impact on Tasmania’s ability to plan and deliver future infrastructure projects.  Maintenance and rejuvenation of ageing assets need to be funded on a sustainable basis.

Recommendations 1. Government must take responsibility for implementing a long-term integrated infrastructure plan for the State. 2. The structure and mechanisms for developing and achieving the long-term plan must be open and transparent and must include wide consultation with industry, the professions and the community at large. 3. Strategies must be developed alongside the infrastructure plan to ensure that Tasmania has, and can access, adequate skills to deliver infrastructure projects. 4. Investment in infrastructure must increase overall. 5. Private sector funding for infrastructure must be encouraged and infrastructure delivery models that include the private sector must have the appropriate allocation of risk to deliver the best project outcome. 6. In the context of the F rating for rail, further short-term investment is required to maintain an operational service while an integrated transport strategy (a component of the recommended integrated infrastructure plan) is prepared to determine the longterm future of rail in Tasmania. 7. Greater cooperation and resource sharing at a local government level is required to plan and deliver more efficient infrastructure provision and maintenance.

iii

CommuniquĂŠ

RATINGS SUMMARY The following summarises the 2010 Tasmanian Infrastructure Report Card ratings. Infrastructure Type

Grade

Comment

Roads overall National roads State roads Local roads

CC+ C D

These ratings recognise that local roads are generally poor and failures are common due to the employment of reactive maintenance practices. State roads have maintained their standard, with the additional expenditure on these roads resulting in some of the backlog of work being addressed. National roads have deteriorated due to increasing freight usage and road pavements exceeding their design life, while the significant investment on national roads has principally been catch-up expenditure.

Rail

Ports

B-

Airports

This rating recognises that the airport infrastructure has improved considerably over the last few years, and is adequate to meet existing and foreseeable future demand.

Potable Water

B-

This rating recognises that the current infrastructure is largely adequate and the 2009 reforms of the water sector will significantly improve water services, provided the committed funding materialises.

Wastewater

This rating recognises that improvements have been made in recent years to infrastructure in problem areas and there have been significant increases in the volumes of recycled water used. The 2009 reforms of the water and sewerage sector will significantly improve sewerage services, provided the committed funding materialises.

Stormwater

C-

Irrigation

B-

Electricity

B-

This rating recognises that Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generation system coupled with the interconnector has high supply reliability and security. It also reflects the ongoing improvements that are underway to enhance the quality of the transmission and distribution networks.

Gas

This rating recognises that the assets of the gas sector are of a high quality. However, supply is at risk of major disruption due to the single transmission pipeline and expansion of the distribution system has stopped.

Telecommunications

C+

Ratings Summary

OVERVIEW Rating process and description The objective of the Report Card is to rate the quality of economic infrastructure. Engineers Australia has been rating infrastructure since 1999. In 1999, 2001 and 2005, national report cards were published. In 2005, report cards on Australian States and Territories were published. This report card revises and expands on the 2005 edition of the Tasmanian Infrastructure Report Card. The purposes of the Report Cards are to:  Raise the awareness of politicians, media, business and the public that infrastructure underpins the community’s quality of life and that inadequate infrastructure impedes economic and social growth, and reduces environmental and societal sustainability  Generate debate on the adequacy of the infrastructure (including condition, distribution, funding and timing) required to meet society’s needs  Increase appreciation of the value of developing an integrated and strategic approach to the provision of infrastructure  Raise awareness of the new challenges facing Australia’s infrastructure due to climate change, change in demographics, demand increases, resilience and sustainability  Improve the policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance of infrastructure. This Report Card provides a strategic overview of Tasmanian infrastructure that other organisations can use when they undertake detailed analysis of particular infrastructures. It also provides a benchmark that the community can use to identify needs and evaluate alternative infrastructure priorities over time. Ratings have been based on an assessment of asset condition, asset availability and reliability, asset management, sustainability (including economic, environmental and social issues) and resilience. The assessment includes evaluating infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance. (See Appendix A: Rating methodology for details.) The assessment was carried out through research and consultation. Interviews were held with relevant stakeholders and documents were analysed. The assessment has relied on publicly available information and has, in line with its aims, focused on strategic issues, supplemented by quantitative performance measures where these were readily available. A number of industry associations were consulted and Engineers Australia provided input through its experts. Ratings used are comparable with those of past Report Cards. The rating scale is detailed below.

Overview Rating scale Letter grade

Designation

Definition*

Very good

Infrastructure is fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Good

Minor changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Adequate

Major changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Poor

Critical changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Inadequate

Inadequate for current and anticipated future purposes

* Fitness for purpose is evaluated in terms of the needs of the community, economy and environment using criteria of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

State-wide issues Major factors influencing Tasmania’s infrastructure demand and supply Population and economic growth will be key drivers of infrastructure demand. The supply of infrastructure is heavily influenced by the quality and quantity of the existing infrastructure, climate change and future investment. Population The figure below shows Tasmania’s population projections along a high and low future growth path. It shows that Tasmania’s population will expand from 0.50 million in 2008 to 0.57 million (14% increase) by 2051 under low growth assumptions or 0.75 million (50% increase) under high growth assumptions. The vast majority of the population growth will occur in Hobart. A growing population will accelerate the demand for all water, electricity, transport and telecommunication services. Tasmania’s recent and projected population using high and low growth assumptions1 0.8 0.7 Millions

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

2051

2049

2047

2045

2043

2041

2039

2037

2035

2033

2031

2029

2027

2025

2023

2021

2019

2017

2015

2013

2011

2009

2007

2005

2003

0.2

Gross State Product The table below shows Tasmania’s projected State Gross Product. Economic growth increases demand directly by businesses for infrastructure services, and indirectly by consumers due to their raised standard of living. Forecast Tasmania’s State Gross Product2 Gross State Product Yearly increase

2009/10 0.25%

2010/11 Projection

2011/12 Projection

2012/13 Projection

1.5%

2.75%

2.25%

Overview

Climate change Climate change will affect the supply of infrastructure services considerably, and in isolated areas, it will also increase demand, notably for electricity due to increased frequency of heat waves. There are different levels of uncertainty with different projections. Important climate change impacts in Tasmania over the next 50 years are expected to be:  Tasmania will become warmer with more hot days and fewer cold nights  An increase in annual rainfall combined with higher evaporation will lead to uncertain effects on run-off into rivers by 2030  By 2020 there will be a 10-40% reduction in snow cover 3  Centres dependent upon agriculture and forestry may be adversely affected. Key infrastructure impacts of the above will be:  Growth in peak summer energy demand is likely, due to air-conditioning use, and may increase the risk of blackouts  Warmer conditions may help spread vector-borne, water-borne and food-borne disease further south. These health issues could increase pressure on medical and hospital services  Urban water security may be threatened by increases in demand and climate-driven reductions in water supply  Increases in extreme storm events are expected to cause more flash flooding affecting industry and infrastructure, including water, sewerage and stormwater, transport and communications, and may challenge emergency services 4  In low-lying coastal areas, infrastructure is vulnerable to sea level rise and inundation. Infrastructure investment The quality and quantity of Tasmania’s existing infrastructure is detailed in this Report Card. At a State-wide level, infrastructure investment amounts provide an indication of these factors. The figure below illustrates the investment in infrastructure over a 25-year period and shows that Tasmania’s investment levels were below national levels in the 1990s, and this decade has been considerably higher than the national level. Investment levels are expected to further increase significantly over the next few years. Index of economic infrastructure expenditure in Tasmania and nationally (real prices, base year index is 1988-89, base is 100 for national expenditure)5 AUSTRALIA

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

2001-02

2000-01

1999-00

1998-99

1997-98

1996-97

1995-96

1994-95

1993-94

1992-93

1991-92

1990-91

1989-90

1988-89

Population Normalised Index (Aus 1988-89 Base)

TASMANIA

Overview

Cross sector challenges While each chapter identifies sector-specific challenges to the future provision of infrastructure, below are challenges across multiple infrastructure sectors.

Strategic planning, coordination and integration Infrastructure drives the productivity, liveability and sustainability of cities, towns and regions. Optimising all three is a considerable challenge that requires planning, coordination and integration. Strategic planning requires a long-term perspective which, for cities, can range up to 100 years. Coordination requires bringing together all stakeholders including the owners, operators and builders of the infrastructure, the infrastructure users, and the community in the planning process and negotiating mutually acceptable outcomes. Integration requires linking infrastructure plans with broader land use objectives, as well as ensuring that plans of different infrastructures complement one another. Tasmania’s level of strategic planning has improved slowly this decade, but much more needs to be done. Challenges to improving planning, coordination and integration of infrastructure include: 6  Working with the 32 planning schemes that exist in Tasmania  Ensuring that plans balance the productivity, liveability and sustainability goals, and explicitly identify any tradeoffs that have to be made  Recognising that strategic plans are based on predictions that often turn out to be inaccurate, e.g. population growth or traffic demand, and consequently plans have to be continually adapted so that the plan’s long-term vision can still be achieved  Negotiating agreement on infrastructure planning with infrastructure owners, operators and users, and across the levels of government and the private sector.

Skills shortages There is a significant engineering skills shortage for Tasmanian infrastructure. Specific areas experiencing shortages include water, road, electrical and local government engineering. This shortage is likely to increase with time due to the large numbers of engineering practitioners retiring over the next decade, and an inadequate supply of graduates. Tasmanian universities graduate fewer than 100 engineers per year, which is less than the attrition rate for engineers in Tasmania. There are some 3,000 diploma and degree qualified engineers employed in Tasmania. The consequence of this shortage is delayed and higher cost projects. There is no short-term solution to this problem and it is common to other States and Territories.

Governments maintaining informed buyer status Having and utilising technical expertise is a pre-condition to being an informed buyer of engineering, information technology and other technical goods and services. It is crucial that buyers are well informed so that they are able to select and justify the option that offers best value for money; select and justify an innovative solution; reduce contractor risks by providing relevant technical details in tender documents; and prevent contractors taking advantage of the buyer's lack of knowledge. The Tasmanian Government and councils need to maintain their informed buyer status, which can be challenging due to budgetary constraints and finding appropriately experienced staff.

Funding New infrastructure provision can be extremely expensive, particularly in built-up areas. Tasmania has recognised that there needs to be significant investment in infrastructure over the next few decades to meet existing and projected demand. Identified investment includes $10 billion for water alone. Challenges to infrastructure funding include:  Ensuring that high levels of investment are maintained over many years 4

Overview Balancing investment on capital works, maintenance, renewals, upgrades and reducing/managing demand  Selecting the best-value source of infrastructure funding  Ensuring that new infrastructure projects receive funding for both the capital works and maintenance. 

Sustainability and climate change Infrastructure must contribute to sustainable economic, social and environmental activities. While individual projects in Tasmania over the last decade have sustainability as one of their criteria, sustainability has not been prominent in policies and strategies that shape cities, towns and regions. Challenges in improving infrastructure’s contribution to sustainability include:  Ensuring that decisions on infrastructure reflect economic, social and environmental criteria  Ensuring that decisions on infrastructure reflect the fact that its physical life is typically between 20 and 50 years, but can be over 100 years with refurbishment  Designing the infrastructure to operate under changed rainfall, temperature, wind speeds, etc, due to climate change  Minimising greenhouse gas emissions over the infrastructure’s lifecycle  Designing infrastructure so that it can be upgraded at some time in the future  Designing infrastructure that maximises the use of recycled elements and minimises total resources use.

Infrastructure performance Infrastructure performance is judged differently by infrastructure owners, operators, users and other stakeholders. Some stakeholders give priority to financial returns, while others on service quality. The Report Card uses a balanced stakeholder assessment and has rated Tasmania’s infrastructure as mostly adequate or poor. Challenges to improving the performance of infrastructure include:  Increasing the supply of infrastructure through the building of new infrastructure or increasing the utilisation of existing infrastructure  Reducing/managing infrastructure demand by methods such as introducing infrastructure pricing regimes that reflect the fixed cost of provision and time of use  Building detailed information on infrastructure demand and supply, and infrastructure conditions to allow for better allocation of resources.

Conclusion Tasmania’s infrastructure is mostly rated as adequate or poor. This rating reflects that the State’s infrastructure is stressed, as illustrated by ‘boil water’ notices and rail derailments. While greater utilisation can be extracted from existing infrastructure by building missing links and instigating demand management, significant investment in new infrastructure is required to address well-known problems in existing areas as well as meeting future demand. Sustaining the necessary high level of investment will be challenging due to the numerous demands for government and private sector investment; however, it is critical that this is done to ensure that Tasmania has liveable, productive and sustainable cities, towns and regions. Engineers Australia welcomes the release in early 2010 of the Tasmanian Government’s Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy. This has incorporated a number of recommendations made in the past by Engineers Australia including the need for a long-term integrated strategy, the creation of an infrastructure advisory body to guide major infrastructure decisions, and regular state of infrastructure reporting. Implementing this strategy will represent a major leap forward for the State. 5

Overview

TRANSPORT Integrated transport Transport planning in Tasmania has undergone a significant change this decade in response to an increase in freight and passenger traffic, capacity constraints with existing transport infrastructure, and construction and usage decisions by transport infrastructure owners and operators. The importance of an integrated and multi-modal approach is critical to meeting current and future transport challenges. This is seen in the recently released Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy (2010), which is an integrated long-term strategy to guide future infrastructure priorities and decision-making in Tasmania. The Strategy coordinates efforts across the major economic sectors of transport, water, energy and telecommunications, and recognises the essential role that land use planning plays in the location and provision of infrastructure. Improved integration of transport and land use planning is essential to meeting key transport objectives. Different land uses generate different demands on the transport network, and in this way decisions about where development is located strongly influence future demand for transport infrastructure and services. Many transport issues can be avoided by locating new development in areas that fit the function and capacity of existing networks and services. An example of improvements to transport and land use integration is the creation of the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the development of three regional land use strategies. Key integrated policy documents are summarised in the table below. Transport mode-specific documents are described in the relevant section. Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key infrastructure and transport strategies Policies and strategies

Description

Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy (2010)

This 10-year State-wide strategy sets the overarching direction for how infrastructure, including transport, is planned, provided, used and maintained. It introduces new infrastructure development processes that aim to increase the rigour in project selection and improve cross-sector coordination. It will cover transport, water, energy and digital communications. The vision for transport infrastructure under the Strategy is to cater for Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing transport task by using existing infrastructure more effectively while making strategic investments to increase the capacity and efficiency of the system. The strategy sets goals for the next 10 years and includes a mixture of physical and non-physical solutions including strategies, changes in governance, and delivery of projects and initiatives.

Transport Policies and strategies

Description

Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework (2010)

The Framework represents the Tasmanian Government’s vision for passenger transport in Tasmania’s urban areas, and is based on a detailed study of passenger transport issues and responses in Greater Hobart. The Framework identifies an integrated package of measures, focusing on travel behaviour, improved public transport, walking and cycling, closer integration with land use planning and strong community and stakeholder collaboration. The Framework is supported by the Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Study, which identified passenger transport issues and responses in the Greater Hobart metropolitan area. The Study considered a range of transport modes (buses, walking and cycling, light rail, ferries), as well as travel behaviour and land use planning initiatives, and compared the benefits and impacts of different measures in improving the passenger transport system.

Tasmanian AusLink Corridor Strategy

This is a strategic framework for managing Tasmania’s AusLink National Network over the longer term, including identification of priority areas and projects.

Southern Tasmania National Network Investment Program

This 10-year investment program for Southern Tasmania represents one of the biggest single improvements to land transport undertaken in Tasmania. The program focuses on major improvements to Hobart’s northern approaches, including the Brighton Bypass and rail upgrades between Bridgewater and Rhyndaston, a new transport hub, and planning for a second stage bypass and new Bridgewater Bridge.

Tasmanian Transport Infrastructure Investment Strategy (2007)

This strategy identifies the major investment priorities over a 5-year period.

Tasmanian Active Walking and Cycling Strategy

The Strategy promotes walking and cycling as viable and desirable forms of transport. The Strategy is intended to guide development of walking and cycling as transport options in urban areas over the long-term by creating a more supportive transport system for pedestrians and cyclists.

Regional Integrated Transport Plans

Each Plan provides a strategic framework for planning and investing in regional transport systems over the long term. The Plans take a whole-system approach and are developed collaboratively with local government and the community. Improved integration of transport and land use planning is a key focus. The plans are: Northern Integrated Transport Plan (2004) Cradle Coast Integrated Transport Strategy (2006) Southern Integrated Transport Plan (draft released in August 2009).

Studies were commissioned to inform transport planning and these include:  Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Study (2009). This study identified passenger transport issues, focusing initially on the Greater Hobart metropolitan area. It considered a range of transport modes (buses, walking and cycling, light rail, ferries) and compared the 7 impacts of proposed measures.  Tasmanian Freight Survey. The Survey analysed heavy freight movements across Tasmania’s land transport network including tonnage, value, commodity, mode and vehicle type. Surveys were carried out in 2002/03 and 2005/06, with initial results from the 2009/10 survey due in May 2010.  Greater Hobart Household Travel Survey. The Survey provided a detailed understanding of passenger movements in Greater Hobart, including travel, trip routes and distribution.  State Infrastructure Planning System (SIPS). The SIPS is a graphically-based decision support system for infrastructure planning. It consists of a database presented in online map format showing demographic, infrastructure and industrial information, and a range of desktop applications used in analysing current and future infrastructure requirements. An example of a project that reflects the integrated approach is the Brighton Transport Hub. The hub is a $79 million Tasmanian Government funded project and involves the construction of a modern road-rail facility and freight distribution hub, 23km north of Hobart. The Hub is on a 50hectare site adjoining the existing Brighton Industrial Estate, and has good road and rail connections as it is beside the Midland Highway and the North-South Rail Line. It is expected to be 8

Transport operational by 2012. The site will become the Southern Region’s major freight hub allowing for the closure of much of the freight activities at Hobart Port. The Hub will significantly improve freight efficiency in the south of Tasmania by improving connections between the State’s north and south, into and around Hobart. Importantly, it has no nearby urban development, which means that it can operate in an uninhibited manner and expand without constraints. Challenges to implementing a more integrated approach to transport planning in Tasmania include addressing problems of:  Legacy transport infrastructure. Tasmania has extensive transport infrastructure, reflecting the need to connect highly dispersed population centres, multiple industrial sites, and export points. Examples include Tasmania’s large number of ports and airports in the north, and extensive road system. Topographical constraints have affected the provision of land infrastructure in particular, and limited future expansion options. The majority of the transport network is mature, and carries a high maintenance cost.  Dispersed, small population. Tasmania has a highly decentralised population, with three major urban centres: Hobart, Launceston and Burnie-Devonport. Growth in outer areas (urban and coastal) combined with a population of less than half a million people make it difficult to achieve economies of scale in transport infrastructure and service provision. 8  Existing planning regimes. There are currently some 32 planning schemes in Tasmania and this number makes decision coordination and consistency difficult.  Uncoordinated decisions. Uncoordinated decisions by both private sector and government transport infrastructure owners and users can undermine the strategic transport plans. A recent example of this was the shift of container traffic from Bell Bay to Burnie port by Toll-ANL. Case study: Midland Highway and road safety The photo shows one of numerous signs erected over the past year warning of rough and uneven surfaces on sections of the Midland Highway (which is part of the National Highway network in Tasmania, and runs between Hobart and Launceston). This particular sign warns of conditions over the next 6km, with almost 10% of the length between Launceston and Hobart subject to such warnings. The deficiencies of the highway became apparent mostly after a wetter than normal winter in 2009, however, it must be recognised that much of the Midland Highway was either constructed (as part of town bypasses) or upgraded in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Pavement design lives adopted were for 20 years of anticipated traffic loading. The pavements have in most cases had only reseals or minor maintenance works and hence are well beyond their design lives; therefore, it should be no surprise at the rate of failures. Traffic growth since initial construction has grown at a higher rate than predicted, and also, following the Mass Limits Review (MLR), the pavements are subjected to higher than anticipated axle loads, both of which shorten the effective life of pavements. Funding for replacement or rejuvenation of assets such as road pavements needs to be adequately planned and reviewed; for example, the traffic growth and MLR should both have triggered an acceleration of funding for pavement maintenance. At the 2009 LGAT Roads Forum, the Minister for Infrastructure advised in his address that road crashes cost the Tasmanian economy $500 million per year. While infrastructure is only one aspect of road safety, it is commonly accepted that improving road infrastructure is the most effective way of reducing the incidence and severity of road crashes. Substandard roads such as the sections noted above on the Midland Highway not only may contribute to crashes, they also increase transport task costs by increasing travelling times and fuel consumption, and lead to higher vehicle running costs.

Transport Case study: Bell Bay Port Upgrade Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highest ranking project submitted for Infrastructure Australia funding in 2009 was the upgrade of the Bell Bay Port, involving port, rail and road improvements. However, shortly after announcing proposed details of the project, a commercial shipping operator that had been using Bell Bay for container traffic decided to abandon Bell Bay in favour of Burnie Port. This led to the rail service into Bell Bay being suspended, as it was no longer economically feasible to run a rail service. The government was forced to take over the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rail operations when the previous operator decided to pull out of Tasmania. This example shows the importance of consulting with all relevant stakeholders in developing long-term infrastructure plans.

Roads

1.1

Summary Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads overall

C-

Not rated

National roads

C+

B-

C+

State roads

C-

Local roads

D+

C-

These rating recognises that local roads are generally poor and failures are common due to the employment of reactive maintenance practices. State roads have maintained their standard, with the additional expenditure on these roads resulting in some of the backlog of work being addressed. National roads have deteriorated due to increasing freight usage and road pavements exceeding their design life, while the significant investment in national roads has principally been catch-up expenditure. Since the last Report Card, the major road sector developments have been:  Release of the Tasmanian AusLink Corridor Strategy, Southern Tasmanian National Network Investment Programme, Tasmanian Transport and Infrastructure Investment Strategy and Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy  Identification of key priorities as part of the Infrastructure Australia Audit  The significant increase in investment in road infrastructure  A greater focus on non-infrastructure solutions to both manage and meet travel demand  The inclusion of the Brooker Highway from Granton into central Hobart, and the Tasman Highway from Hobart to Hobart Airport, into the National Network, making these roads eligible for Australian Government road funding. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  The Brighton Bypass and Transport Hub projects  The Bass and Tasman Highways upgrades  The South Arm Highway from Oceana Drive to Pass Road upgrade  The East Tamar Highway upgrade  The North East regional freight network strategic upgrades  The Kingston Bypass. Challenges to improving road infrastructure include:  Ensuring adequate road funding given the extent and maturity of the network  Improving the planning and delivery of local roads  Improving the efficiency and safety of key freight and passenger corridors  Achieving integrated land use and transport planning outcomes.

1.2

Infrastructure overview

1.2.1

System description The Tasmanian road infrastructure is comprised of: 9  National Network, 576km (defined as roads of the National Land Transport Network, formerly the AusLink Network)

Transport 10

State roads, 3,848km of roads and 1,248 bridges and other structures (defined as roads of the Classified State Road Network and includes national network) 11  Local government roads, 14,600km (known as local highways, local roads and council roads)  Forestry roads, 1,210km of Class 1 and Class 2 roads, 12,471km Class 3 and 4 roads plus a access tracks, and 86 permanent bridge structures (owned by Forestry Tasmania) 12  Hydro Tasmania roads, 588km. 

About 44% of the road network is bitumen or concrete, and 66% is gravel or crushed rock. The 13 total replacement value of State-managed roads and bridges assets is around $4 billion. Tasmania has an extensive road system, reflecting a decentralised population, dispersed freight task, and a current focus on road for freight movement. The road segments with the highest usage levels connect the major ports and intermodal facilities, and the major population centres of Burnie, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart. These routes mostly constitute the Tasmanian corridor of the National Land Transport Network (formerly the AusLink Network). Some regional roads also carry very high volumes of freight, and some carry higher volumes than elements of the National Land Transport Network. For example, the Ridgley Highway carries over 2.3 million tonnes, more than some sections of the Midland Highway. 14 Tasmania’s State roads are classified under the Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy 2007, a functional hierarchy categorising roads by function, forecast use and traffic volumes. Categories are:  Category 1 Trunk Roads. The most important roads interconnecting Tasmania.  Category 2 Regional Freight Roads. Tasmania’s major regional roads for carrying heavy freight.  Category 3 Regional Access Roads. The main access roads to Tasmania’s regions, but carrying less heavy freight traffic than Regional Freight Roads.  Category 4 Feeder Roads. These roads allow safe travel between towns, major tourist destinations and industrial areas. 15  Category 5 Other Roads. The remainder of the State roads. The classification system is used by the Tasmanian Government to allocate construction and maintenance funds, define the target standards that a road should be built to, and identify what restrictions should apply to the road’s usage. Figure 1.1 shows Tasmania’s roads classified according to the road hierarchy. Bridges 16

There are about 1,209 structures (mostly bridges) on the State roads and about 4,000 bridges on local government roads. The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) is responsible for bridges on State roads and 32 bridges on local government roads due to their 17 significant heritage value, high replacement cost or technical complexity. The strategic framework for bridge management is called the Bridge Asset Management Plan (BAMP). Released in 2005, the BAMP defines the strategies, policies and practices to ensure best value asset management, as well as identifying each bridge’s required level of service. It is used to prioritise works to identify 18 which bridges require replacement or strengthening to remove load limits.

Forestry Tasmania currently manages an extensive network of forestry roads, constructed for the principal purpose of providing access to working forests to harvest and regenerate forestry coupes. The construction of this road network is funded by Forestry Tasmania through income received from the sale of wood products. As a general rule, Forestry Tasmania allows the public to use these forestry roads for recreational purposes.

Roads Figure 1.1: Tasmanian State roads classified according to the road hierarchy (excludes local roads)19

Local government road and bridge assets Table 1.1 details the assets owned by local governments. Table 1.1: Local government road and bridge assets 20 Local Government

Roads length sealed (km)

Roads length unsealed (km)

Number of Bridges

Break Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Day Council

202

352

131

Brighton Council

144

Burnie City Council

345

Central Coast Council

536

134

Central Highlands Council

657

103

Circular Head Council

281

492

101

Clarence City Council

393

Derwent Valley Council

233

Devonport City Council

231

Dorset Council

252

487

105

Flinders Council

386

George Town Council

174

Glamorgan Spring Bay Council

147

198

Glenorchy City Council

293

Hobart City Council

303

Huon Valley Council

160

599

191

Kentish Council

248

202

106

Kingborough Council

265

268

128

386

Latrobe Council

225

Launceston City Council

720 combined

Meander Valley Council

542

266

271

Northern Midlands Council

564

416

Sorell Council

153

188

King Island Council

Transport Southern Midlands Council Tasman Council

162

641

136

267

227

133

West Coast Council

West Tamar Council

285

173

Waratah-Wynyard Council

High Productivity Vehicles Vehicles up to the size of tri-axle semi-trailers have general access to the entire road network. Roads are assessed as suitable for High Productivity Vehicles (HPV) and Higher Mass Limit Vehicles (HMLV). The approved HPV/HMLV networks allow movement of vehicles up to the size of B-doubles along most of the important freight routes, as seen in Figure 1.2. Tasmania provides exemptions through Gazette Notices and permit systems to allow these vehicles to use public 21 streets. Figure 1.2: High Productivity Vehicles (HPV) and Higher Mass Limit Vehicles (HMLV) routes22

Cyclists and pedestrians The State and local governments have recognised the environmental and health benefits of cycling. Tasmania has endorsed the Australian National Cycling Strategy, and each of the Regional Integrated Transport Plans includes cycling as a key component. The Tasmanian Government recently released the Tasmanian Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy, which promotes walking and cycling as viable forms of transport through improved infrastructure, land use planning and behavioural change. The Tasmanian Government has allocated $4 million over the next three years for tracks, trails and city bikeways as part of the Tasmanian Trails Strategy.

134

Roads 1.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government’s priorities for roads are to develop an efficient, accessible and safe road network that balances business, passenger and tourism needs. The focus is on developing a road network that meets the current and future freight and passenger tasks, connects population centres, industrial areas and export points, and is supported by good land use planning decisions. As much of the road network is owned by local government and interfaces with assets built by large businesses, the Tasmanian Government has increasingly been involved in collaborative road planning with these groups and the community, as illustrated in the regional integrated transport planning process. The Tasmanian Government’s approach to road planning sits within the Government’s wider infrastructure development and strategic planning framework that links land use, infrastructure, industrial and residential development. Major transport planning documents are listed at the beginning of this chapter and road-specific documents are:  North East Forestry Freight Transport Strategy (to be released in 2010). This strategy aims to improve heavy vehicle transport links by separating heavy vehicle and passenger traffic on key passenger routes (including upgrades to the Bridport Main Road and strategies to address deficiencies on the Tasman Highway).  Transport Noise Strategy (to be released in 2010). Following the release in July 2009 of the Environmental Protection Policy [Noise], DIER is developing a transport noise strategy.  Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2007/2016, which provides the road safety policy framework. Key road-related legislation includes:  Roads and Jetties Act 1935. The Act is the main source of law on State highways and subsidiary roads.  Local Government (Highways) Act 1982. The Act is the main source of law on local government roads.  Traffic Act 1925. The Act contains traffic management provisions that relate to all roads open to the public.  Transport Act 1981. This Act regulates and controls transport services on road, water or air via the establishment of a transport authority known as the Transport Commission.  Vehicle & Traffic Act 1999. This Act regulates the licensing of drivers, registration of vehicles 23 and traffic management. Key multi-jurisdictional and government bodies are:  The National Transport Commission (NTC). This national body is an inter-governmental body that develops and coordinates regulatory reform for nationally consistent transport policies and laws.  Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Australian Government). The Department provides policy advice to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and delivers a variety of programs on behalf of the Australian Government. It provides funding for transport infrastructure and promotes safe and secure transport solutions.  Tasmanian Planning Commission. From 1 September 2009, the Commission became Tasmania’s peak planning body. Its transport role is to plan for the coordinated provision of b transport, and of infrastructure, for land development.  Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) (Tasmanian Government). DIER has responsibility for the provision, management and maintenance of the Classified State Road Network. Key groups within it are:

It assumed the functions of the former Resource Planning and Development Commission and the Land Use Planning Branch of the Department of Justice.

Transport     

Transport Commission, responsible for statutory issues including rules, regulations and legislation Infrastructure Policy and Planning Division, responsible for strategic transport policies and planning, supporting analysis and GIS systems Roads and Traffic Division, responsible for infrastructure delivery and maintenance, and traffic management Land Transport Safety Division, responsible for registration and licensing, vehicle operations, road safety, and driver testing Passenger Transport Policy Division, responsible for urban, rural and school bus services, 24 taxi industry regulation and concession management.

Funding Funding for public roads comes from a combination of Australian, Tasmanian and local governments. The National Land Transport Network is funded by both the Australian and Tasmanian Governments and administered by the DIER. Roads on the Classified State Road Network are funded by the Tasmanian Government with some funding from the Australian Government. Local government roads are funded by local governments, via rates, with contributions from the Australian Government. Until 2009, Australian Government road funding was provided principally under the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and, to a much lesser extent, under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 and the Federation Fund. Australian Government funding of Tasmanian roads consist of:  National Projects. These are targeted projects on the National Land Transport Network designed to improve efficiency and safety. In Tasmania over the 2008/09 to 2013/14 period, National Projects funding totalled $9.2 million for ongoing projects, $212.4 million for new projects, $53.1 million for off-network projects and $37.43 million for road maintenance 25 programs.  Roads to Recovery. This program addresses the problem of local roads reaching the end of their economic life, and their replacement being beyond the financial capacity of local governments. Tasmanian local governments received $57 million for the period July 2009 to 30 June 2014.26  Black Spot Program. This program improves the physical condition or management of hazardous locations with a history of crashes involving death or serious injury. Tasmanian Black Spot projects announced in 2009 totalled $3 million. On-going Black Spot projects as of March 27 2009 totalled $1.6 million.  Financial Assistance Grants for roads. Grants paid directly to Tasmanian local government 28 will total $31.3 million in 2009/10.  Road safety levy. For details, see the Road safety section. The Tasmanian Government’s funding of road projects is identified in the Tasmanian Transport Infrastructure Investment Strategy (2007) and the Southern Tasmania-National Transport Network Investment Program 2007/2015 (2007). Projects by region are identified in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Road projects 2008/201129

Region

Projects and their costs

North West

Bass Highway as part of the Ulverstone duplication ($42 million) Bass Highway Sisters Hill upgrade ($30 million) Lake Secondary Road upgrade ($8 million) Port Sorell Main Road ($4 million)

North

East Tamar Highway ($68.3 million) Strategic upgrades to the North East regional freight network ($42.5 million) Illawarra Main Road ($6 million) Bell Bay rail and road improvements ($9.6 million)

Roads Region

Projects and their costs

South

Brighton bypass ($164 million) Kingston Bypass ($33 million) Lyell Highway – Granton to New Norfolk ($14) million Bridgewater Bridge – ongoing maintenance ($14 million) South Arm Road – Shoreline Roundabout to the Police Academy ($10 million) Brooker Highway ($10 million) Midland Highway – safety improvements ($5.6 million) Tea Tree Road ($4 million)

Funding for Tasmanian roads has increased considerably over the last few years, with a significant part of this due to the Australian Government Building Australia program. The Australian 30 Government has allocated $464 million to Tasmania between 2008/9 and 2013/14. The division by region for combined State and Australian Government budgets for 2008/09 is detailed in Table 1.3. Table 1.3: Tasmanian road expenditure by region for combined State and Australian Government budgets for 2008/0931 Region

Tasmanian Government ($ million)

Australian Government ($ million)

Total Budget ($ million)

South

57.391

28.525

85.916

North East

27.506

21.269

48.775

North West

26.830

9.906

36.735

111.727

59.699

171.426

Total

In the 2009 round of funding by Infrastructure Australia, the Tasmania Government submitted the following list of projects for consideration:  Bell Bay Intermodal terminal expansion.  Brooker Highway upgrades  Frankford-Birralee-Batman freight corridor 32  West Coast freight solutions: feasibility study. Of these, the Bell Bay Port expansion project was identified as one of 28 pipeline projects (i.e. projects with real potential) by Infrastructure Australia, and the Government is continuing to progress this project. See Ports section for details. 1.2.3

Sector trends Growth in passenger traffic Between 1998 and 2006, there was a 14% increase in the number of passenger vehicles in Tasmania, with a 17% increase in total passenger vehicle kilometres travelled and a 15% increase 33 in average distances travelled. Between 2005 and 2008, passenger vehicle growth was 2% per 34 annum. Between 2008 and 2023, passenger vehicle kilometres are expected to grow at 1.36% 35 per annum. Passenger traffic growth on the Midland Highway between Bridgewater and Brighton 36 is expected to increase by 45% by 2030, and north of Brighton by 34%. Growth in the freight task The number of road vehicles in Tasmania has grown significantly in recent years, with the largest growth category being trucks as seen in Table 1.4.

Transport Table 1.4: Tasmanian road vehicle fleet 2005/200837 Vehicle type Personal vehicle

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Growth 2005/2009 (% per annum)

270,005

275,724

280,301

285,488

306,152

1.9

Truck

28,853

30,288

31,365

33,044

38,692

4.8

Light commercial vehicles (work units, utilities, vans)

56,426

57,836

58,627

60,202

63,073

2.2

Other

110,404

117,779

119,838

123,822

121,570

4.0

Totals

465,688

481,627

490,131

502,556

527,838

2.6

Trends over the last few years that have affected the freight volume have been:  More freight moving through the northern ports. Historically, freight from the southern region was exported and imported via Hobart port; however, now some 86% of total exports from the 38 region are exported via the northern ports.  The decline in rail capacity and reliability resulting in increased attractiveness of road freight. The largest road freight categories are mining, forestry and agricultural products. Much of this freight originates in remote areas and is trucked to northern processing facilities and ports. In 2005 on the west coast, over 30% of mining products were carried by road with 70% by rail, but by 2010, 39 about 54% of the expected one million tonnes of freight will be carried by road. Forest products accounted for over 30% of Tasmania’s total freight mass and 21% of all freight trips in 2005/06. It is expected that the forestry freight task will grow by 15% over the next 25 years due to the maturing 40 of large plantations. Agricultural products accounted for some 13% of Tasmania’s total freight 41 task by value. Freight forecasts include the following: 42  Tasmania’s land freight task is expected to increase by 66% over the next 20 years.  The tonne-km travelled by rigid and articulated trucks will increase 91% from 2.7 billion to 5.2 43 billion by 2023 if past trends continue.  Growth in light commercial vehicles will be 3.2% per year to 2015. Light commercial traffic is 44 predicted to account for 20% of the urban transport task by 2020, particularly in fringe urban areas and commuter suburbs such as Brighton, Cambridge and Kingston.  Road heavy freight tonnage on the National Land Transport Network will grow at nearly 2% per annum from 24 million tonnes in 2008 to 32 million tonnes in 2023.  The highest level of freight growth is expected on the Bass Highway between Carrick and 45 Launceston, largely due to a high proportion of general container freight.  The transport task is forecast on the roads between Launceston and Bell Bay to increase by 46 2.5% a year, resulting in a total of 62% between 2005 and 2030.

1.3

Performance

1.3.1

Road safety The quality of road infrastructure influences road safety. According to the Australian Transport Council, ‘Improving the safety of roads is the single most significant achievable factor in reducing road trauma’. It notes that ‘road investment improves road safety through general road improvements – typically, new roads are safer than old roads – as well as through treatment of 47 black spots’. Tasmania’s strategy for road safety is called Our Safety Our Future–Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2007/20. Deaths and serious injuries on Tasmanian roads cost the State an estimated 48 $500 million per annum. The road safety strategy focuses on four key directions – safer travel

Roads speeds, best practice infrastructure, increased safety for young road users and enhanced vehicle safety. Road safety targets in Tasmania are based on serious casualties (combined serious injuries and fatalities). The Strategy aims to achieve:  By 2010, a 20% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities from 2005  By 2015, a 20% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities from 2010 49  By 2020, a 20% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities from 2015. Tasmania achieved the target of a 20% reduction on 2005 figures for serious injuries but not for fatalities, as seen in Table 1.5. Some $42.5 million over five years is being spent on road safety. This is funded by a $20 road safety levy that has been applied to the annual registration fees of all vehicles from December 2007. Infrastructure improvements include:  21.5km of flexible safety barriers on major highways  Traffic calming treatments  700 Electronic Speed Limit Signs at 240 schools 50  Motorcycle-specific safety devices including stack cushions and rub rail. Figure 1.3 shows the annual road death in Tasmania over the last 15 years per 100,000 population compared to Victoria. The annual Tasmanian death rate between 2004 and 2009 has ranged between 41 and 64.

Road deaths per 100,000 population

Figure 1.3: Road deaths per 100,000 population in Victoria and Tasmania51 16 Vic

Tas

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

Table 1.5 provides accident rates showing that Tasmania’s fatality rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres is above the national average.

Transport Table 1.5: Road safety indicators52 Road safety indicator

Tasmania /National Average

2000

2001

2002

2003

Fatalities

Tasmania

Serious injuries53

Tasmania

Serious casualty crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres

Tasmania

10.1

10.6

8.7

National average

11.0

10.7

11.2

Fatality rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres

Tasmania

0.98

1.53

0.83

National average

0.98

0.91

0.89

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

380

371

317

329

277

287

7.7

7.8

6.7

10.5

0.88

1.27

0.96

1.09

0.90

0.8

0.79

0.76

0.75

For details on road rail crossing safety, see 2.3.4 Level crossing safety.

1.3.2

Road quality Road ride comfort is measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI). When the IRI is less than 4.2, most travellers would consider it to be a smooth ride. Table 1.6 identifies the proportion of State roads defined as smooth. Thus, some 97.3% of State roads are considered smooth in the last financial year, a decline since 2005/06. However, the wet conditions during winter 2009, coupled with poor maintenance practices, have resulted in significant road condition deterioration. For instance, some 10% of the Midland Highway is now covered by signs warning of poor road conditions. Table 1.6: Proportion of travel on smooth State roads 2000/01 to 2008/0954 Measure Smooth travel exposure â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4.2 IRI (%)

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

95.0

95.4

95.7

96.6

97.3

97.7

97.5

97.3

The satisfaction with local roads is reflected in the survey results from the Local Government Association of Tasmania. As seen in Table 1.7, only 63% of residents are satisfied with roads, footpaths and traffic in 2009, compared to 60% in 2006 and 65% in 2002. Table 1.7: Satisfaction with local government services55 Service Area

Satisfaction Score % 2002

2006

2009

Customer Service

Water and Sewerage

Waste Management

Community Health and Safety

Recreational and Cultural Facilities and Programs

Social and Community Services

Roads, Footpaths and Traffic

Planning and Development

Average Satisfaction with Councilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Performance

Number of Elements

Roads The breakdown for the elements of the above rating is provided in Table 1.8. Table 1.8: Community satisfaction with the level of local government services with respect to roads, footpaths and traffic56 Element

Scoring 4 or 5 out of 5 (%) 2006

Satisfaction Score (%)

2009

2006

2009

Safe and well-maintained local roads

Safe and well-maintained pedestrian areas, e.g. footpaths and walkways

An efficient local road network, i.e. traffic flow

The strategic management of roads is documented in the Road Asset Management Plan (2006), the Strategic Asset Management Plan (2005) and the Bridge Assessment Management Plan (2005). These documents define the criteria and policies that influence decision-making for the 57 better management of the road network. The effectiveness of road maintenance can be assessed by the Road Maintenance Effectiveness (RME) indicator. This represents the cost per lane kilometre to maintain road pavements to target conditions. Table 1.9 identifies that the cost has increased by 50% between 2000/01 and 2008/09. Table 1.9: Road maintenance effectiveness58 Measure

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Road Maintenance Effectivemeness – 4.2 IRI ($’000)

3.4

3.1

2.9

3.0

3.5

4.1

4.4

Road Maintenance Effectivemeness – 5.33 IRI ($’000)

3.1

2.8

2.6

2.8

3.3

3.8

4.1

An indicator of bridge asset management quality is achieving the inspection regime. A 2005 audit by the Tasmanian Auditor-General found that more than 21% of all bridges had not been inspected within the target dates and that 3% had missed two inspections. A 2008 update found that the backlog of bridge inspections had been almost entirely eliminated and steps have been taken to ensure that the maintenance register is regularly updated. Table 1.10 identifies the improvement in bridge inspections. Table 1.10: Backlog in outstanding bridge inspections59 Inspection delay Inspection delay <6 months

2005 No of bridges

2008 % of total

2009 (December)

No of bridges

% of total

No of bridges

% of total

108

1.1

6–12 months

1.3

1–2 years

0.2

2–3 years

0.2

>3 years Total

0.4

254

2.6

A measure of a road’s operational condition (e.g. speed and travel time, freedom to manoeuvre, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience) is provided by the Level of Service (LoS). There are six levels of service, designated LoS A (best – free flow) to LoS F (worst – break-down in flow). LoS D is defined as ‘close to the limit of stable flow and is approaching unstable flow [and] all 21

Transport drivers are severely restricted in their freedom to select their desired speed and to manoeuvre 60 within the traffic stream’. The Tasmanian Government identifies the following highways as currently or soon to be at LoS D:  Midland Highway. Bridgewater to Brighton is currently at capacity.  Brooker Highway. The urban section (Berriedale to Burnett Street) is at capacity, and the northern section (Berriedale to Bridgewater) will exceed capacity by 2023.  Tasman Highway. The Tasman Bridge is at capacity, the western section of highway to Brooker Avenue is at capacity, and the Tasman Bridge to the Mornington Roundabout will be at capacity by 2015. 61  Bass Highway. The Burnie to Wynyard section will exceed capacity by 2023. Table 1.11 identifies the roads which are already below LoS D across Greater Hobart. Table 1.11: Roads which are already below LoS D across Greater Hobart 62 Road name

Link

Estimated 2006 AADT

One Way Service Flow (vehicles per hour)

Highway Capacity two way (vehicles per day)

Brooker Highway

Berriedale Road underpass to Burnett Street

38,680

1,715

24,000

Channel Highway

Sandfly Road to Kingston Interchange Overpass

13,000

1,299

11,800

Domain Highway

Brooker Highway to Tasman Highway

22,170

1,358

12,300

Midland Highway

Rifle Range Road to Brooker Highway

13,160

1,054

9,600

Rokeby Road

Clarence Plains Rivulet Bridge to Merindah Street

15,560

1,086

9,900

Tasman Highway

Tasman Bridge (west) to Brooker Avenue

52,090

2,230

29,000

Tasman Highway

Tasman Bridge

65,890

2,610

33,900

Tasman Highway

Shark Point Road to Holyman Avenue Roundabout

12,050

1,257

11,400

Source: Southern Region Overview Report, DIER & Southern Tasmanians Councils Board, March 2008

Regional roads with constrained alignments for freight vehicles, and other problems include:  Bridport Main Road, Scottsdale to Bridport. This section has inadequate width and pavement strength, alignment constraints and unsealed shoulders. The highway has a medium to high safety risk between Scottsdale and Bridport.  Birralee-Frankford-Batman corridor. This section is generally in poor condition, with freight constraints west of Glengarry to Selbourne, poor horizontal and vertical alignment, inadequate pavement width and strength, unsealed shoulders and inadequate junction layouts.  Bass Highway, Wynyard to Smithton. Small sections of this road have freight constraints due to poor horizontal and vertical alignments, unsealed shoulders and inadequate access and junction layouts.  Murchison Highway, Zeehan to Ridgley Highway. The highway section between Zeehan and Anthony Main Road has major freight constraints with poor horizontal and vertical alignments and unsealed shoulders. Safety risk is medium to high.  Tasman Highway from Hobart Airport to Triabunna. This section, particularly around Sorell and Sorell to Triabunna, has inadequate pavement, junction and access arrangements.  Tea Tree-Fingerpost Roads: Some sections have freight constraints and inadequate access and junction layouts, and pavement strength issues.

Roads 

1.3.3

Huon Highway from Huonville to Southern Outlet. Some sections have pavement strength 63 issues and inadequate junction and access layout conditions.

Environmental sustainability Governments, industry and the community are pursuing a range of measures to increase environmental sustainability. These include:  Increasing the low level of public passenger transport usage. Public transport usage in Tasmania is low in comparison to other States with trips by public transport accounting for less than 3.5% of total journey to work trips.64 Improving public transport use is a key objective of the Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework, with a range of initiatives identified to increase the attractiveness and efficiency of public transport (e.g. high-frequency bus corridors, improved off-bus infrastructure, travel behaviour programs).  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. Meeting the challenges of climate change is a core objective of the Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework. Improving the State’s transport system is one of eight priority areas identified in the Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change. An integrated approach that includes encouraging a mode switch to walking, cycling and public transport, better land use planning and travel behaviour initiatives, are critical. The Government has established minimum greenhouse ratings for new Tasmanian Government fleet vehicles and is investing in the purchase and trialling of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles for use in the Tasmanian Government vehicle fleet and public passenger transport fleet.  Developing sustainable transport strategies. These strategies are being developed to create safe, efficient and affordable transport options that minimise the consumption of energy and 65 resources. Organisations developing these include Wellington Park Management Trust and 66 Hobart City Council. Actions by road providers (DIER and local governments) to enhance sustainability include:  Implementation of the Tasmanian Urban Passenger Framework and Tasmanian Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy, both of which promote non-car-based travel through a range of land use planning, demand, infrastructure and behavioural change measures  Implementing a sustainability rating system to encourage a triple bottom-line approach  Constructing innovative fauna crossings, including tunnels for Tasmanian Devils  Improving water quality from road run-off  Development of a transport noise strategy that focuses on reducing noise at the source as well as mitigating the effects of excessive transport noise  Taking into account climate change considerations in the planning, design, specifications, construction, operation and maintenance of road and bridge infrastructure (Treasurer’s instructions)  Continue to undertake Climate Futures for Tasmania – Infrastructure Project. The project involves developing a method to assess the performance of infrastructure in Tasmania under different climate change scenarios. These climate predictions will aid in developing a risk profile for the State’s major infrastructure assets and will help with future planning and infrastructure 67 design.

1.4

Future challenges The future challenges to achieving improvements in road infrastructure are:  Ensuring adequate road funding, given the extent and maturity of the network. The Tasmanian road network is mature and extensive, meaning that it has substantial maintenance baseline costs. The Tasmanian Government recognises that parts of the road network are 68 deficient in terms of alignment for existing and future heavy vehicles. In 2008, it stated that the network had a maintenance backlog of around $100 million, and the gap between existing and 69 required funding to achieve sustainable maintenance levels was $18 million per year. 23

Transport Increasing road funding is required to eliminate the backlog and address growing traffic volumes.  Improving the planning and delivery of local roads. Local roads are facing a series of challenges that result in considerable variability in road quality. These include:  Not allocating the revenue from heavy vehicle registrations fees to the areas experiencing heavy vehicles damage  A lack of comprehensive and comparable asset management data across Tasmania that makes prioritising investment difficult  A lack of awareness and cooperation between neighbouring councils regarding capital works programs, causing inefficiencies and increased cost  Significant and potentially radical reforms to local road provision are required to improve efficiency, such as amalgamating the road functions of 29 councils and DIER.  Improving the efficiency and safety of key freight and passenger corridors. High Productivity Vehicles offer significant freight efficiency gains. However, sections of the State’s road network are unsuitable for these vehicles, which mean that more vehicle trips occur and less direct routes are used. Improvements are required in making key HPV routes capable of supporting current and future HPV vehicles. Unless these roads are improved, business will experience higher transport costs and governments will experience higher road maintenance costs.  Achieving integrated land use and transport planning outcomes. The integration of land use and infrastructure planning requires significant improvement. Progress is being made with the development of Regional Integrated Transport Plans, regional land use strategies, and the creation of the Tasmanian Planning Commission. However, their successes will be constrained 70 by the existence of some 32 planning schemes across the State, as well as unsupportive decisions by the private sector.

1.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Roads overall

C-

Not rated

National roads

C+

B-

C+

State roads

C-

Local roads

D+

C-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s overall road infrastructure has been rated C-. This rating recognises that local roads are generally poor and failures are common due to the employment of reactive maintenance practices. State roads have maintained their standard, with the additional expenditure on these roads resulting in some of the backlog of work being addressed. National roads have deteriorated due to increasing freight usage and road pavements exceeding their design life, while the significant investment on national roads has principally been catch-up expenditure. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  The increased funding for roads  The development of integrated regional transport plans  Increasing policy integration of road and land use developments. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Increased road congestion on certain major routes  Static or declining quality of local government roads  Inadequate funding for road maintenance and new work to cope with increased traffic volumes  Lack of comparable data on all road assets across the State. 24

Rail

2.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Rail

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

C-

D-

This rating recognises that infrastructure is inadequate for current and future purposes, and that the magnitude of the works required to provide any reasonable utility from this infrastructure is enormous. Since 2005, the major rail sector developments have been:  The departure of the rail operator, Pacific National Tasmania (PNT) in 2009  The purchase of PNT’s assets and Melba Line by the Tasmanian Government  The consolidation of above and below rail assets into the Tasmanian Government-owned Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd  The continual decline in freight volumes  Some 43 derailments (1 January 2005 to 20 June 2009)  Significant increase in expenditure on maintenance and capital works for below rail assets via the Rail Reform Package (2007) and the Building Australia package (2009)  Suspension of rail services to Bell Bay in January 2010. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Replacement of the Jordan River Bridge ($1.5 million)  Upgrading of 67 level crossings  Re-sleepering program involving relaying 160,000 sleepers and 25km of rail ($38 million)  Capacity improvements along Main North-South line ($31.6 million) and Rhyndaston ($24 million)  Maintenance work on the existing network ($61.13 million)  Upgrading of the Burnie to Melba Flats line ($15.7 million), Burnie to the Western Junction line ($30.3 million), Hobart to the Western Junction line ($20.3 million), Fingal Line ($5.7 million), Boyer Line ($1.07 million) 71  Expansion of the Bell Bay intermodal terminal ($5.2 million). Challenges to improving rail infrastructure include:  Developing a credible plan for the future of Tasmanian railways  Improving the efficiency and productivity of the existing rail network.

2.2

Infrastructure overview

2.2.1

System description Tasmania’s commercial rail infrastructure consists of: 72  narrow gauge railway (626km of operational rail lines) 73  350 bridge and culvert structures. The railway is narrow gauge (3’6” or 1,067mm), and built of wooden or steel sleepers. Rail weight 74 ranges from 31 kg/metre to 41 kg/metre.

Transport Railways in Tasmania can be divided into the freight-only Tasmanian Rail Network that operates for commercial purposes, and the historic rail lines. Tasmania has not had any regular passenger service since 1978, and there are no trams or other light rail operating in any Tasmanian city. There are five operational lines of the Tasmanian Rail Network as identified Figure 2.1. These are the:  Bell Bay line, 52km, running from the East Tamar Junction to Bell Bay (services suspended from January 2010)  Fingal line, 54km, running from Conara Junction to Fingal  South line, 199km, running from Hobart’s Macquarie Point terminal to the Western Junction  Western line, 179km, running from East Tamar Junction to Burnie  Melba line (also known as Emu Bay line), 130km, running from Burnie to Melba Flats  Derwent Valley line, 14km, running from Bridgewater to Boyer. Non-operational lines of the Tasmanian Rail Network are: 75  The Boyer to Maydena segment of the Derwent Valley line, closed in 2003  The Zinc Works line, 3km running from Derwent Park to Risdon, closed in 2003  The North East line, 73km running from Coldwater Creek to Tonganah, closed in 2004 76  The Smithton/Wiltshire to Burnie segment of the Western line, closed in 2003. Figure 2.1: Tasmanian Rail Network77

Rail Ownership developments 1975 to 2009 The ownership of Tasmania’s railway has gone from public to private to public again over the last 35 years. Table 2.1 provides a timeline of major ownership and funding issues. Table 2.1: Ownership developments 1975/2009 Year

Ownership developments

1975

The Tasmanian Government transferred ownership of Tasmanian Government Railways (TGR) to the Australian Government.

1978

The Australian Government’s Australian National Railways Commission (AN) took operational control of TGR. The network was renamed Tasrail.

1997

AN sold Tasrail to the Australian Transport Network (ATN) for $22 million.78 ATN was a partnership between TranzRail and Wisconsin Central Railways. The sale included 32 operational locomotives, and 750km of track of which about 500km was in use at the time of the sale.79 The sale excluded rail land which was transferred to the Tasmanian Government; however, ATN was granted a 50-year lease for the use of the land and existing facilities.80

1998

ATN purchased the Emu Bay Railway (Melba line) from Pasminco.81

2004

Pacific National purchased ATN including Tasrail which was renamed Pacific National Tasmania (PNT).82

2005, October

Pacific National announced that it would cease freight rail services in Tasmania (other than for cement from Railton to Devonport and minerals on the Melba line) unless government financial assistance was provided to upgrade the network.83

2005, December

The Australian Government and the Tasmanian Government announced the $118 million Rail Rescue Package which involved: The acquisition of the railway infrastructure by the Tasmanian Government for $1 and the termination of the 1997 lease with PNT The Australian Government providing Auslink funding of $78 million over 10 years for capital works to upgrade the network The Tasmanian Government providing $4 million per annum over 10 years for maintenance of the network (total $40 million) PNT investing $38 million over eight years on locomotives and rolling stock for its Tasmanian rail service The new contractual and governance arrangements which were specified in the Rail Management and Maintenance Deed (2006), including the appointment of PNT as the operator of the rail network, operating trains on the network at zero access fee. 84

2007

Ownership of the tracks passed back the Tasmanian Government.85

2008, June

Pacific National (via its owner Asciano) formally advised the Tasmanian Government that they were going to sell up and leave Tasmania.86

2009, February

Pacific National advised the Tasmanian Government that it could not find an owner, and that the company wanted to exit the State on 30 June 2010, with the government taking over rail track infrastructure on 30 June 2009.87

2009, May

Pacific National advised that it would cease services on the Melba line and exit the State by 30 June 2009.88

2009, September

The Tasmanian Government concluded an agreement with PNT to take over full ownership of PNT, effective 30 November 2009, for $32 million.89 The price included $6 million for the West Coast Melba line and Burnie ship loader and $26 million for the rest of the assets including rolling stock, locomotives and buildings and major customer contracts.90

2009, October

Legislation passed creating the government-owned company which would own and operate the railways.91

2009, December

Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd took responsibility for all rail operations and assets.

Tasmanian railway owner and operator – Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd Since 1 December 2009, Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd has been the owner and operator of the Tasmanian Rail Network. This company is owned by the Tasmanian Government and its shareholders are the Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. The company has two roles:  The below rail asset management including the management of the rail network infrastructure, train control and scheduling, and coordinating maintenance and planning of the rail network including the development of proposals for capital works 27

Transport Above rail operations including providing bulk and intermodal rail freight services to customers, 92 and owning and operating the rolling stock.



The Rail Company Act 2009 established the Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd and it allows the shareholders to direct the Company to engage in rail services which may not be commercially viable but are in the public interest. In such circumstances, appropriate compensation can be paid to the Company, as determined by the Treasurer. The direction of Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd is 93 defined in the Shareholders’ statements of expectation, written by the Tasmanian Government. The assets of the Tasmanian Rail Network consisted of the below rail assets previously owned by the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources as defined by the Rail Management and Maintenance Deed (2006) and the above rail assets previously owned by Pacific National Tasmania. Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd is the employer of PNT’s 180 staff and several staff from the 94 former DIER’s Rail Management Branch. It is based in the former PNT headquarters at the East Tamar railyards. Tasmania’s rolling stock consists of about 60 locomotives and 560 wagons, although a significant proportion of it is not in operable condition. The major categories and their numbers are listed in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Major categories of rolling stock95 Rolling stock

Locomotive class or wagon type

Number

Locomotives

EMD

English Electric

MKA Wagons

Container- flat 2 TEU (Twenty foot equivalent unit)

183

Container-flat 3 TEU

Flat-logs

Hopper-aluminium-cement

Hopper-Ballast

Open-ore

Spine bolster flat-logs

No significant investment in rolling stock occurred from 2007 until the exit of PNT from Tasmania despite the Rail Management and Maintenance Deed (2006) specifying that PNT would invest $38 million over eight years on locomotives and rolling stock. This situation developed because the Deed included trigger events, such as the loss of contracts or freight volumes, which would enable PNT to legally avoid their obligation to provide this investment. When a large coal contract was lost, 96 PNT exercised this right. Freight task Freight in Tasmanian consists of bulk forestry and mining products, and containerised freight. The freight type carried on Tasmania’s railways has changed considerably this decade with a significant decrease in container traffic due to poor reliability, while the volume of concentrates carried on the 97 Melba line has increased. Table 2.3 lists the major commodities and destinations in 2002/03. Table 2.3: Tasrail’s Top Ten Commodities – Origin and Destination 2002/0398

Rank

Commodity

Origin

Destination

Cement

Railton

Devonport Silo

Containers

Various

Ports

Concentrates

Melba/Primrose loading facility

Burnie Concentrates facility

Coal

Fingal ex mine stock pile direct to plant stock pile

Railton

Rail Rank

Commodity

Origin

Destination Burnie Boyer

Newsprint

Boyer ex mill store to wharf

Burnie Bell Bay Boyer

Logs

Fingal

Boyer

Wiltshire

Bell Bay

Austins Ferry, direct from log yards to facility log yards

Tasmanian Board Mill

Paper Pulp

Burnie ex wharf direct to paper machine

Boyer

Timber

Lings Siding

Devonport

Tonganah to wharf 9

Gypsum-Bulk

Hobart

Devonport

Fertiliser

Hobart

Burnie Devonport

From about 2004, container traffic decreased significantly due to locomotive unavailability and poor 99 reliability. However, the volume of concentrates carried on the Melba line increased. The freight in 2004/05 is illustrated in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Rail freight task 2005/06100

In 2005/06, rail carried around 6% of Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 60 million tonne freight task, or 44% measured in 101 net tonne-km. This was about one third of total contestable freight. Since 2006, bulk freight has declined. For example, in October 2007, PNT lost the contract to haul 110,000 tonnes of coal from 102 Fingal to newsprint maker Norske Skog at Boyer. Major derailments, such as the six-week 29

Transport closure of the South line in mid 2009, led to the short-term transfer of containers from rail to road but much of the freight task returned back to rail as it was cheaper to do so. From 2002/03 to 103 2007/08 the annual tonnage carried on the railways reduced by 16%. The estimated amount of 104 freight carried in 2007/08 was 2.6 million tonnes. Ports and intermodal terminals As the rail network is essentially a network to facilitate the export of bulk commodities and import/export of containers, the intermodal connections are essential to rail productivity. There are rail terminals at the three major public intermodal centres (Hobart, Burnie, and Bell Bay ports) and the one private intermodal terminal (Norske Skog newsprint mill at Boyer which handles 105 coal, logs and newsprint). The rail terminal at Devonport caters for cement and other bulk commodities. The rail facilities at ports are generally poorly laid out and require double handling of containers 106 and excessive shunting. There is a lack of landside and rail infrastructure. Table 2.4 defines the key issues with port-rail connection. Table 2.4: Port-rail connection issues107 Terminal Location

Description of issues

Bell Bay

The rail loading facilities at Bell Bay are located on the main berth hardstand and are congested, with restrictions on rail operations when ships are being unloaded. Rail access to Berth 2 does not pass underneath the on-dock crane and train wagons interfere with road movements. At Berth 5, there is no under-crane access for the rail network and freight trains interfere with other port movements when trains are loaded and unloaded. Currently, the on-dock rail access is limited to trains of 300m in length. The facility averages four trains a week. The connection to the main Tasmanian rail network is poor, with a steep grade out of the port limiting train capacity.

Burnie

The port and the rail terminal are land-locked with limited expansion options. There is an on-dock rail loading facility available at Burnie; however, this is seldom used for containerised freight. The majority of the containers are moved between the wharf area and a rail terminal by road.

Hobart

Poor location and layout of the Hobart freight terminal, located at Macquarie Point, resulted from the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evolution from what was originally a rail maintenance facility. Local amenity has become an issue with truck movements and terminal noise causing local residents to complain. In addition, the locations of the warehouses and businesses that ship cargo have moved to the outer edges; in this case, to the northern boundary of Hobart.

Devonport

In Devonport, freight travels through a mix of commercial and residential areas to reach the port. The port spans both sides of the river with container freight and passengers located on the eastern shore and bulk freight on the western shore. A rail line is located only on the western shore. Road freight has to travel on local government roads passing through residential and commercial areas to reach a major highway.

The construction of the Brighton intermodal terminal will see the transfer of road and rail operations to Brighton from the Port of Hobart. It will reduce the length of train journeys originating in or destined for Hobart by about 25km and provide more efficient loading facilities, allowing trains travelling between Hobart and Burnie/Bell Bay to reduce turnaround times. Utilisation of the hub and additional track productivity improvements would be required to reduce north-south turnaround 108 times from 24 to 12 or 8 hours, depending on port terminus. Historic railways Historic railways in Tasmania are important for tourism and consist of: ď&#x201A;ť The West Coast Wilderness Railway. This railway operates between Queenstown and Regatta Point (Strahan). It is a rack railway (using the ABT system) which was first constructed in the 1890s and operated until 1963. The line was rebuilt and reopened fully in 2002. The railway is governed by the Abt Railway Development Act 1999, and a condition of the lease

Rail requires the operation of a freight train service that provides access to timber extraction 109 contractors and other commercial enterprises.  The Derwent Valley Railway (DVR). This railway suspended rail services in 2005 but the Derwent Valley Railway Preservation Society is seeking to restore services along the Derwent 110 Valley Line from New Norfolk to Maydena.  The Don River Railway. This railway runs short trips between Coles Beach and Don River, 111 Devonport.  The Ida Bay Railway. This railway operates regular services over a former forest tramway between Lune River and Deep Hole Creek on the shores of Ida Bay (14km). This is Australia’s 112 southernmost railway. In March 2009, the Premier announced that the Government is preparing a four-year strategic plan 113 for rail tourism.

2.2.2

Policy and governance As of early 2010, the Tasmanian Government has not published a policy for rail in the State that reflects the post-PNT environment. However, the legislation and statements by the Government to form Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd provides a guide. The Tasmanian Government considers rail to have a key role in freight transport and seeks to ensure ‘uninterrupted services’ on the north-south rail link and certain other rail services, notably the Melba line. Service provision will be made not solely on commercially grounds, as loss-making lines may be supported on public interest grounds. The willingness to support unprofitable lines is partly due to the realisation that if the railways closed, road accidents, emissions and noise would increase. A pre-2007 government study had found that if PNT removed the majority of its services, the cost of additional road maintenance would be $1.1 million annually, other costs (e.g. road crashes) would be incurred totalling $3.8 114 million, and rail customers would experience an additional $17.5 million in freight costs. The pre-2009 policy position of the Tasmanian Government was having distinct below and above 115 rail operations. With the failure of PNT to find a buyer for its assets, the only option available was for the Government to take over both operations. The legislation allows for the future sale of all or part of Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd. The Tasmanian Government has stated that once Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd has undertaken a strategic assessment of its business and developed a capital works program to bring the rail network and rolling stock to the desired level to ensure the provision of uninterrupted services, consideration will be given to the future ownership options for the 116 company. c

Tasmania’s rail transport legislation is comprised primarily of the following:  Rail Company Act 2009. This Act establishes the Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd and the following Acts were passed to support its operation:  Emu Bay Railway (Operation and Acquisition) Act 2009. This Bill addressed several legal issues to allow the transfer of the Emu Bay Railway, previously owned by PNT, to the Tasmanian Government.117  The Consolidated Fund Appropriation (Supplementary Appropriation for 2009/2010) Bill 2009. This Bill provided an appropriation of $34 million out of the Consolidated Fund for the purchase of PNT.118  Rail Infrastructure Act 2007. This Act defines the operations of the rail network.

Less significant Acts are the Abt Railway Development Act 1999; Burnie to Waratah Railway Act 1939; Emu Bay Railway Acts 1965 and 1976; Railway Management Act (Repeal) Act 1997 and Van Diemen’s Land Company’s Waratah and Zeehan Railway Acts 1895, 1896 and 1948.

Transport 

Rail Safety Act 2009. This Act, which will be implemented in early 2010, introduces nationally consistent rail safety legislation based on co-regulation where rail industry participants accept accountability for achieving required safety outcomes in return for the flexibility to identify and 119 implement the most effective and efficient means of addressing risks to safety.

Key government bodies are:  Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd. See the section Tasmanian railway owner and operator – Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd above.  Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) (Tasmanian Government). Key divisions and authorities are:  Infrastructure Policy and Planning Division. This Branch is responsible for rail policy including developing a strategic plan for the sector which includes the modal share, access pricing and funding.  Rail Safety Unit. The Rail Safety Unit’s role in rail safety regulation is to: - Administer, audit and review the accreditation regime under the Rail Safety Act - Work with accredited railway organisations and other stakeholders involved in railway operations to improve rail safety in Tasmania - Collect and publish information relating to rail safety - Provide, or facilitate the provision of, advice, education and training in relation to rail safety. - Monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the Rail Safety Act.

2.2.3

Sector trends Continual uncertainty about the future of Tasmania’s railways The last decade has seen continual rail line closures, decline in infrastructure quality and repeated threats of the rail operator to leave Tasmania. This has created a great deal of uncertainty about the future of the rail network. With the takeover of rail by the Tasmanian Government and the formation of Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd, fears about rail’s closure have abated. However, concern about its future remains until the Tasmanian Government details its strategic vision for rail in Tasmania, and until Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd produces its strategic plan including its capital works program for below rail infrastructure and rolling stock. The measures identified in the Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy (2010) have increased confidence in the future of rail. Rail oriented elements highlighted in the strategy include:  Committed rail infrastructure spending  Developing principles and objectives of a fair rail network access and a pricing framework  Implementing rail productivity as well as safety reforms  Constructing the Brighton Transport Hub  Realigning rail at Bell Bay Port and the potential Bell Bay intermodal expansion  Potential Burnie Port upgrade to prime bulk goods port with roll-on/roll-off capacity  Developing access pricing based on costs associated with rail use  Investigating options to privatise above rail operations in the longer term  Developing objectives and actions to guide future priorities and decision-making.

2.3

Performance Tasmania’s railway level of performance reflects:  The poor condition of the below rail assets. Rail alignments have changed little since the bulk of the railway lines were built in the late 1800s. Problems include tight curves and steep gradients. In addition, passing loops are short which prevent more economical long train lengths.  The poor condition of the rolling stock. The locomotive fleet has an average age of thirty-nine 120 121 years. The last new locomotive in Tasmania arrived in 1976, although a number of secondhand or rebuilt locomotives have been obtained since then.

Rail

The results of the above have imposed limitations on train length, axle loads, load capacity and operating speed. This has led to the Tasmanian Government stating in 2008 that ‘much of Tasmania’s rail infrastructure and rolling stock is now considerably aged and inefficient and overall 122 infrastructure condition is poor’. This reflects past funding. Prior to 2007, the previous three decades saw just $45 million being spent on rail line maintenance and minor upgrades compared 123 to around $798 million for road. The rail network theoretically has sufficient capacity to meet existing and foreseeable demand, despite being a single track, narrow gauge railway. A single track could typically be expected to 124 handle 20 plus trains per day in two directions via passing loops, and an effective train control system that allow trains running in opposite directions to cross safely. A narrow gauge provides no insurmountable load capacity or stability issues as illustrated by fact that the Queensland Tilt Train operating on a narrow gauge line can travel at 160km/h. However, the small number of narrow gauge rail systems worldwide does mean that the pool of second hand rolling stock for purchase is quite small.

2.3.1

Derailments The quality of the rail network is reflected in the number of derailments. Tasmania’s rail network 125 has experienced 84 derailments between Jan 2001 and Jun 2009. Major recent ones included:  6 January 2010. A derailment outside of Brighton closed the north-south line for three days.126  15 May 2009. Two locomotives and five wagons derailed at Rhyndaston, near Colebrook, damaging more than 60m of track. All north-south rail services were suspended for six weeks.  1 April 2009. A train carrying copper concentrate from Melba to Burnie derailed just south of the Renison mine, between Rosebery and Zeehan. The derailment severed two concrete pipes 127 taking water to the mine and Renison’s processing plant, forcing production to stop.  30 January 2009. The last 14 carriages of a 27-carriage paper goods train derailed south of 128 Deloraine. The derailment occurred due to track buckling caused by hot weather. 129  11 December 2008. Three engines and two wagons derailed near Colebrook. 130  25 June 2008. Locomotive derailed north of Campania, damaging about 400m of track.  7 June 2008. Seven wagons carrying containers tipped off the tracks at Preservation Bay near 131 Penguin. As seen in Table 2.5, Tasmania’s level of derailments is 11 times that of the national average, and 19 times that of Victoria’s. For the last decade, the major method in Tasmania to reduce potential derailments from poor infrastructure has been to introduce speed limits rather than upgrade the 132 line. However, this approach was failing to prevent derailments as several have occurred at very low speeds such as the December 2008 derailment near Colebrook when the train was travelling at 133 just 28km/h. Table 2.5: : Running line derailments, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009134 WA

Tas

2001 Jan – Jun Jul - Dec

Year

NSW 41 34

Qld 22 26

7 9

7 3

Vic 12 6

NT 1 0

SA 19 13

Total 109 91

2002 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

50 43

27 25

16 20

8 7

9 12

0 0

18 15

128 122

2003 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

29 21

27 14

11 12

4 3

8 8

3 2

12 9

94 69

2004 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

32 39

15 19

8 10

6 3

14 9

2 2

12 8

89 90

2005 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

24 29

14 12

8 8

2 3

15 8

2 0

11 10

74 70

Transport WA

Tas

2006 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

Year

16 19

14 10

6 11

3 3

7 14

0 2

7 5

53 64

2007 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

20 22

17 20

5 9

6 5

7 13

0 0

11 9

67 78

2008 Jan – Jun Jul – Dec

17 10

21 17

11 7

8 4

9 8

1 0

5 7

72 53

2009 Jan – Jun Total

NSW

Qld

Vic

Total

459

323

167

166

183

1,405

When comparing the Tasmanian data with mainland jurisdictions, it is important to recognise that each State has a different rail safety risk profile. The Tasmanian railway operations are characterised by low-speed, mostly freight services that operate over difficult topography (tight curves and steep grades). This profile is different from the mainland profiles, which include a large percentage of high speed and commuter passenger services. Thus, the consequences of derailments are generally less per incident in terms of human life loss and cost of damage. Tasmania’s derailment rate is the worst in Australia as seen Table 2.6 when examined per million km travelled. Table 2.6: Train derailments per million km travelled, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009135 Parameter Train derailments per million km travelled

2.3.2

NSW

Qld

Tas

Vic

Total

0.90

0.96

0.82

10.20

0.53

1.61

1.27

0.91

Infrastructure improvements Following the transfer of ownership of below rail infrastructure in 2007 from PNT to the Tasmanian Government, capital and maintenance expenditure on the railway have increased. Recently completed or mostly completed capital projects include: 136  Replacement of the Jordan River Bridge ($1.5 million) 137  Restoration of the Cam River Rail Bridge to working order on the Wiltshire line ($320,000)  Remedial works on the Leven River Rail Bridge to strengthen the bridge’s halving joints on the 138 Western Line and repairs to the North-South Line  An initial 20,000 re-sleepering project ($2.8 million) 139  The State-wide re-sleepering program. Initially, this contract involved the replacement of 140,000 sleepers and 20km of rail, but after a contract variation, it was increased to 160,000 sleepers and 25km of rail. The total value of the new contract is $38 million. Work began in January 2009 and by June 2009, 130,000 sleepers and 20km of rail had been replaced. 140 d  Upgrading 67 passive level crossings. Table 2.7 identifies the forward works program as part of the 2007 Rail Rescue Package as specified in the Tasmanian 2009/10 budget. Table 2.7: Containing rail Investment by Tasmanian Government 2009/10 – 2012/13141 Continuing projects

Estimated Total Cost ($’000)

2009/10 Budget ($’000)

2010/11 Forward Estimate ($’000)

2011/12 Forward Estimate ($’000)

2012/13 Forward Estimate ($’000)

Infrastructure development

78,000

16,750

9,170

5,830

7,180

Infrastructure maintenance

40,000

4,308

4,415

This project across the Tasmanian rail network began in April 2009 and by the end of June, 38 crossings had been completed.

Rail In July 2009, the Australian Government announced a $195 million package of investment in Tasmania’s rail infrastructure. It consisted of funding:  Capacity improvements along the Main North-South line ($31.6 million, work to start in 2009/10)  Capacity improvements at Rhyndaston ($24 million, work to start in 2009/10)  Maintenance work on the existing network ($61.13 million, work to start in 2009/10)  Upgrade of the Burnie to Melba Flats line ($15.7 million)  Upgrade of the Burnie to the Western Junction line ($30.2 million)  Upgrade of the Hobart to the Western Junction line ($20.3 million)  Upgrade of the Fingal Line ($5.7 million)  Upgrade of the Boyer Line ($1.1 million) 142  Expansion of the Bell Bay intermodal terminal ($5.2 million which also includes road projects). The Australian Government’s contribution to the Rail Rescue Package ($78 million) is in addition to the above projects. Figure 2.3 shows the location of the Australian Government funded projects. The July 2009 package noted that several projects announced in May 2009/10 Tasmanian Budget would be deferred. These consisted of:  The Wiltshire Rail Line Upgrade ($30 million)  Upgrade of the Derwent Valley rail line from Boyer to Karanja ($30 million)  Upgrade of the West Coast Rail Spur to Hellyer Mine and from Melba Flats to Zeehan 143 ($11.7). Figure 2.3: Australian Government funded rail upgrades announced in July 2009144

Transport 2.3.3

Safety Under the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport, the National Transport Commission (NTC) developed nationally consistent model legislation to improve and strengthen the co-regulatory system for rail safety. The model legislation was approved by Australian, State and Territory Transport Ministers in June 2006. In 2009, the Tasmanian Parliament passed the Rail Safety Act 2009 which aligns with the model. Its major elements include:  Requirements that all rail industry participants that form the ‘chain of responsibility’ to ensure the safety of their railway operations  A system of accreditation to provide assurance that rail organisations have the competency and capacity to operate safely before they are permitted to do so  Audit and inspection powers necessary to enable the Rail Safety Regulator to monitor the compliance of duty holders with statutory duties and related accreditation requirements  A hierarchy of compliance and enforcement powers and sanctions to facilitate an effective and proportionate regulatory response to detected forms of non-compliance by rail organisations 145 and other persons. As seen in Table 2.8, fatal and serious personal injuries on Tasmania’s rail network are very low. Table 2.8: Rail fatal and serious personal injuries, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009146 Fatalities and injuries

Qld

VIC

Fatalities

120

159

170

544

Not available

Serious personal injuries

2.3.4

TAS

NSW

Total 355

Level crossings safety Level crossings can be controlled through either passive or active control systems. Passive control systems alert road users, through signs and road markings, to an approaching level crossing. Active traffic control systems alert road users through flashing lights and sounds that are triggered by approaching trains. For high risk level crossings, Active Advanced Warning Systems can be installed that alert road users of approaching trains up to 200 metres before the crossing. 147

In Tasmania, there are 160 passive and 120 active level crossings. There were 26 road vehicle 148 collisions at level crossings between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2009. As seen in Figure 2.4, Tasmania’s incidence of level crossing accidents is 7.7 times that of the national average, and 4.2 times that of Victoria’s.

Rail

6 Victoria

5 Tasmania

Tasmania

3 Australia 2 Victoria

Australia 0 2009 Jan-Jun

2008 Jul-Dec

2008 Jan-Jun

2007 Jul-Dec

2007 Jan-Jun

2006 Jul-Dec

2006 Jan-Jun

2005 Jul-Dec

2005 Jan-Jun

2004 Jul-Dec

2004 Jan-Jun

2003 Jul-Dec

2003 Jan-Jun

2002 Jul-Dec

2002 Jan-Jun

2001 Jul-Dec

2001 Jan-Jun

Road vehicle collisions at level crossings per million train km travelled

Figure 2.4: Normalised road vehicle collisions at level crossings per million train km travelled by jurisdiction, January 2001 to 30 June 2009 149

Table 2.9 identifies road vehicle collisions at level crossings by jurisdiction over the period 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009. Table 2.9: Road vehicle collisions at level crossings by jurisdictions, 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009150 Level crossing collisions Total

Qld

157

SA 81

WA 33

VIC 236

TAS

NSW

Total

623

Work began in April 2009 to upgrade 67 passive level crossings across the Tasmanian Rail Network. The Australian Government is providing $3.9 million over 2008/09 and 2009/10 to fund improvements, including moving some from passive to active control, and installing the Active Advanced Warning System at 13 high risk rail level crossings. Work commenced in mid 2009 and 151 the program is expected to be completed around the middle of 2010. An intermodal freight hub is being constructed at Brighton, north of Hobart. The relocation of the existing rail yard from Macquarie Point in Hobart to the Brighton Hub will remove regular train movements from 29 level crossings, including most of the busiest crossings in the State. These crossings account for almost half the reported collisions at rail level crossing during the last five 152 years. While the collision rate per million train km travelled is high, the absolute number and severity of collisions involving trains in Tasmania is very low. This is because there are only a limited number of train movements each day, there are no passenger trains with the exception of a few tourist railways, trains travel comparatively slowly, and a high standard of traffic management has been 153 provided at rail level crossings.

2.3.5

Environmental sustainability Rail transport is around four times as energy efficient as road transport for freight. This means that rail has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. However, increasing rail freight to improve environmental outcomes is not a justification that the Tasmanian Government has focused on due to the larger priority of simply maintaining rail operations. It has been observed that rail is not included in the Improving Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transport 154 system priority action area of the 2008 Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change.

Transport

2.4

Future challenges Future challenges to achieving improvements in rail infrastructure are:  Developing a credible plan for the future of Tasmanian railways. The future direction for Tasmanian railways will remain uncertain until the Tasmanian Government releases a long-term strategic plan for railways, stating how it fits within an integrated transport framework. Such a plan is needed to ensure that investment decisions made by Tasmanian Railway Pty Ltd complement road, port and intermodal centre developments. The rail strategy needs also to integrate with the strategy for historic rail services, decisions on the reintroduction of regular passenger services, and decisions about light rail/public transport in the Hobart region. The plan for the future of Tasmanian railways will only be seen as credible if it is developed with existing and potential freight customers and other stakeholders, and has broad support by political parties, business groups and the public. It would also have to be robust enough to cope with the loss of significant freight contracts and derailments, and recognise that rail has limited competitive advantages given that the rail network is almost entirely duplicated by the road network and transport tasks are all short haul (the average trip distance on Tasmania’s rail 155 network is 167km).  Improving the efficiency and productivity of the existing rail network. Increasing train length, load capacity, operating speed and turnaround time will require considerable improvements in rolling stock, below-rail infrastructure, and port-rail connections and intermodal hubs. The investment to achieve improvements will require substantial investment over at least a decade. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be required to make significant improvements. For example, to build a new efficient alignment from Brighton to Oatlands will cost between $300 156 million and $500 million alone.

2.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Rail

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

C-

D-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s rail infrastructure has been rated F. This rating recognises that infrastructure is inadequate for current and future purposes, and that the magnitude of the works required to provide any reasonable utility from this infrastructure is enormous. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Creation of a vertically integrated rail owner and operator  Increased investment in below rail infrastructure  Planning for rail line realignment at Bell Bay (see Ports section)  Improvement on the South rail line with future train turnaround time of the north-south rail service being reduced from 24 to 12 hours or less. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Poor above and below rail infrastructure  Major inadequacies of rail provision at the northern ports  Poor operational efficiency  Uncertainty about the future of Tasmanian railways.

Ports

3.1

Summary Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C+

Ports

This rating recognises that while capacity at ports is currently adequate, over the longer term, substantial problems will arise due to a lack of efficient and effective integration in the provision of road, rail and port infrastructure. Since the last Report Card, the major port sector developments have been:  The merger of the State’s four port corporations into the Tasmanian Ports Corporation (TasPorts)  The development of a strategic plan for Tasmania’s main ports  Consolidation of container traffic at Burnie Port as a result of a commercial move by a private operator  An established shift in southern Tasmanian freight from the Port of Hobart to exports/imports through the three northern ports  The decision not to build a hospital on land adjacent to the Hobart port, which TasPorts considered would have impacted on the operation of the port. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Improvements at the Port of Bell Bay. Challenges to improving port infrastructure include:  Maintaining the strategic direction for Tasmania’s ports in the face of short-term commercial decisions  Improving road and rail connections at ports  Accommodating future freight growth  Integrating land use decisions with port development.

3.2

Infrastructure overview

3.2.1

System description Tasmania’s port infrastructure consists of the four major ports at Bell Bay, Devonport, Burnie and Hobart. Tasmania also has eight smaller regional ports at Triabunna, Smithton, Stanley, Strahan, e Currie, Grassy, Lady Barron and Whitemark, and numerous recreational ports. There are also privately owned ports at Port Latta and Risdon. This section focuses only on the four major ports as they are an integral part of the State passenger and freight transport system. The section does not cover stevedoring services whose primary role is to load and unload ships.

Triabunna is the largest of these ports and exports over 800,000 tonnes of woodchips per year from the Spring Bay wharf. The Strahan Wharf services the large tourism industry on Tasmania’s west coast in addition to a significant fishing fleet. The ports of Stanley and Smithton service the sizeable fishing fleet that fish the Bass Strait and west coast. The ports located on King and Flinders Islands trade predominately in fuels, livestock and general cargo.

Transport Tasmania’s four major ports are of enormous significance to the Tasmanian economy as 99% of 157 the State’s total exports are moved by sea. Around 45% of Tasmania’s maritime freight is 158 destined for international markets. Thus their performance has a direct impact on the State’s economy. The location of Tasmania’s ports is displayed in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Tasmania’s port network159

TasPorts Tasmania’s four major ports are all owned by the Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (TasPorts). TasPorts is a government-owned enterprise formed in 2006 from the amalgamation of the State’s four port companies – Hobart Ports Corporation Pty Ltd, Port of Launceston Pty Ltd, Port of Devonport Corporation Pty Ltd and Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd. The merger was undertaken to drive operational and planning efficiencies by bringing all ports under the control of one organisation. Savings from the merged structure were estimated to be between $2 million and $5 160 million per year. TasPorts’ shareholders are the Minster for Infrastructure and the Treasurer. Its principal objectives, as defined by its establishment legislation, are to:  Facilitate trade for the benefit of Tasmania and 161  Operate its activities in accordance with sound commercial practice. TasPorts has responsibility for port operations and administration, port planning and capital 162 investment. When TasPorts was formed, it inherited a number of non-port assets from the previous port companies. These include airports, land and buildings. It has divested a number of these to focus on improving core port operations. The only significant non-port asset remaining in 163 its possession is the Devonport Airport. TasPorts intends to sell this in 2009/10.

Ports Port of Burnie The Port of Burnie services Tasmania’s west coast mines and handles most types of bulk cargo including minerals, fuels, forest products and woodchips, as well as containerised cargo. The port 164 is Tasmania’s second largest in terms of throughput. It is Tasmania’s major container port with 165 the import and export of a total of 213,196 containers in 2008/09. It has a roll-on/roll-off (RORO) service. A rail spur line extends into the container yard. Road freight has to travel via a short section of local government roads to reach the Bass Highway. TasPorts’ Strategic Plan for the Port of Burnie sees the port being developed into the premier bulk commodity port, yet maintaining its general cargo capability. This Strategic Plan envisaged the transfer of its container traffic to Bell Bay. The reason for this rationalisation is that the Port of Burnie has limited terminal space for both container and bulk ore storage and loading, and already 166 suffers from urban encroachment which prevents it from expanding its footprint inland. Expansion could be achieved through land reclamation, but this would be adjacent to sensitive 167 commercial, residential and recreational areas. As part of this strategy, over the 2008/2009 period the old and obsolete Burnie P7 Portainer crane was dismantled. In August 2009, freight transport company Toll Holdings began a joint venture with shipping firm ANL Container to cover the Bass Strait services. Under the joint venture, ANL withdrew shipping services between Melbourne and Bell Bay leaving Toll’s two ships to provide services from Melbourne to Burnie.168 This development has been criticised by TasPorts as being unsustainable due to the inability to increase capacity at Burnie over the long-term.169 In August 2009, it was estimated that the relocation decision would result in 600 containers normally shipped out of Bell Bay each week being transported by road to the port.170 The decision will increase truck movements around the port, potentially causing congestion and noise problems for the local community, and increasing the costs of road freight for some customers. It will also result in a major revenue shortfall for TasPorts that will affect its financial capacity to maintain existing infrastructure. 171 The decision was made by Toll on commercial grounds, and while it remains unclear how customers and new shipping companies will respond over the short to medium term, the Tasmanian Government considers that the decision does not impact the long-term focus on Bell Bay which is the only major port capable of any significant expansion to cater to a higher freight task. Port of Bell Bay The Port of Bell Bay is located on the eastern bank of the Tamar River adjacent to a major Tasmanian industrial estate, 48 kilometres north of Launceston. The port has direct rail access. Bell Bay port is Tasmania’s largest port in terms of throughput. The port provides both bulk handling (including minerals, fuels, timber, timber products and food) and container handling. It transferred 91,929 containers in 2008/09. While there is rail access to the port, its constraints include limited siding length, limited location on berths and steep departure grade. It has good road connections. Bell Bay is seen by TasPorts to be the port best placed to grow as it has sufficient nearby industrial land for expansion, a natural deep water, good road and rail connections, and no nearby urban development. Expansion projects proposed include:  The $150 million Bell Bay Integrated Gateway project, which consists of eight hectares of 172 reclamation, and the redevelopment of container berths and berthing zones. Preliminary 173 concept work and geotechnical work has been completed and tidal studies have begun. The project was listed in 2009 as project with real potential by Infrastructure Australia.  Advanced plans for a $9.6 million rail realignment which will reduce the requirement for shunting 174 and thus improve the efficiency of freight operations.

Transport 

The 2009 purchase of an additional 10.8 hectares in the neighbouring Bell Bay industrial estate to provide land for future port-related activities.

The decision in 2009 by Toll-ANL to transfer container shipping from Bell Bay to Burnie will result in 175 a loss of more than 31,000 container movements per year. As a result of the change, there was insufficient demand for a rail service into Bell Bay and in January 2010, services to the port were suspended. Port of Devonport The Port of Devonport is located on the Mersey River in Devonport, and services the central northern areas of Tasmania and areas east to the Tamar Valley. The port spans both sides of the river with container freight and passengers located on the eastern shore and bulk freight on the western shore. A rail line is located only on the western shore. Road freight has to travel on local government roads passing through residential and commercial areas to reach a major highway. The Port of Devonport primarily handles the export of wheat, grain, cement and containerised goods and the import of fertilisers, fuels and consumables. The Port of Devonport is home to the TT-Line Company’s Spirit of Tasmania I and II, which provide a regular service between Devonport 176 and Melbourne. The TasPorts’ Strategic Vision for the Port of Devonport sees the port continuing as a multi-user port with priority given to mainland ferry services. Port of Hobart The Port of Hobart is located on the Derwent Estuary adjacent to the city’s central business district. Its main facilities are around the historical port precinct in Sullivans Cove but it also has a number of other facilities along the estuary. The Port of Hobart is the State’s smallest in terms of throughput. It handles dry and liquid bulks, 177 breakbulk and some containerised general cargo mainly for the Antarctic trade. It is the main naval port and cruise ship destination in Tasmania and is the base for Australian Antarctic supply 178 vessels. The port contains a major fuel supply base located upriver at Self’s Point. Port throughput experienced a significant drop between 2002 and 2006. The port currently has rail access with a siding and yard at Macquarie Point. However, the rail 179 siding is unusable due to problems with load limits, siding length and the run-around capacity. The railyard is being relocated to the Brighton Transport Hub, and the rail connection with the port will be discontinued. The rail corridor to the port from the Hub will be retained for possible future use. A potential threat to the long-term operation of the Hobart port was averted in 2008. The Tasmanian Government had indicated that it was going to relocate the Royal Hobart Hospital to the railyards. TasPorts considered that this $1 billion project would have inhibited the long-term viability of the Hobart port by removing its safety and environmental buffer zone. This zone allows it to undertake its operations that generate safety risks and nuisance (e.g. noise, dust, nighttime floodlighting and odours) without being limited by the requirements of nearby occupants. In 2008, the government decided not to build the hospital due to its cost. A decision on the future use of the railyard site is yet to be made. It is commonly believed that freight volumes at the Port of Hobart are in steady decline. This is expected to have occurred because of the shift in southern Tasmanian freight from using the Port of Hobart to using northern ports. Some 86% of export from southern Tasmania now use northern 42

Ports 180

ports, and some 99% of regional imports use northern ports. A steady decline is supported by examining the trend over a four-year time period where volumes reduced by over 10%. However, if a three-year time frame is used, it has grown by over 8%. TasPorts’ Strategic Vision for the port sees it continuing to develop as a base for Antarctic research 181 and a centre for cruise ships and naval vessels. During the 2008/2009 period, the old and obsolete Hobart Portainer crane was dismantled as part of TasPorts’ infrastructure maintenance program. However, the future of the port will depend on decisions about the railyard redevelopment. Port throughput 182

Since 1995, Tasmanian’s port throughput has increased by 37.4%. Over the last decade, total port tonnage has grown, on average, over 3% per year while the container market has grown by 183 5.5% per year. Table 3.1 identifies the throughput statistics for each port. Table 3.1: Total throughput for 2008/2009184 Port

Import (mass tonnes)

Export (mass tonnes)

Total Throughput

Cruise vessel visits

Bell Bay

1,599,171

3,106,110

4,705,281

Burnie

1,291,547

2,874,827

4,166,374

Devonport

1,327,270

1,865,337

3,192,607

Hobart and Triabunna

1,058,441

1,732,650

2,791,091

Tasmania

5,276,429

9,578,924

14,855,353

Table 3.2 details throughput over the last four years. Of note is a decline of some 9% between 2007/08 and 2008/09, principally due to the global financial crisis reducing demand. Table 3.2: Total throughput by port by mass tonnes185 Year ending June

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

4-year average change 2004/05 – 2008/09

3-year average change 2005/062008/09

Bell Bay

6,047,520

4,937,313

5,246,972

5,512,592

4,705,281

-28.6%

-4.7%

Burnie

4,063,434

4,150,722

4,277,443

4,457,061

4,166,374

2.5%

0.4%

Devonport

3,202,534

3,140,072

3,122,949

3,263,888

3,192,607

-0.3%

1.7%

Hobart and Triabunna

3,086,640

2,566,506

2,548,060

2,988,992

2,791,091

-10.6%

8.7%

Tasmania

16,400,128

14,794,613

15,195,424

16,222,533

14,855,353

-10.4%

0.4%

Figure 3.2 displays the growth in Tasmanian container throughput since 1995/06. Tasmania’s 186 container traffic had increased from 292,868 units in 1999/00 to 474,186 in 2008/09. Burnie is the State’s largest container port.

Transport Figure 3.2: Total TEUs for Tasmanian Ports187

600000

500000

Total TEUs

400000

300000

200000

100000

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

2002/03

2001/02

2000/01

1999/00

1998/99

1997/98

1996/97

1995/96

3.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government provides overall direction for the State’s transport system through its strategic transport planning and policy frameworks, but primary responsibility for the strategic direction of ports rests with TasPorts. The Tasmanian Government provided detailed submissions to Infrastructure Australia as part of its National Infrastructure Audit. The Government was successful in having the Bell Bay Expansion project recognised as one of 28 pipeline projects by Infrastructure Australia. TasPorts has developed a strategic plan for ports that focuses on each port building on its relative strength. Future options that have been outlined for port specialisation include:  Bell Bay to become the major Tasmanian international container port and the major Bass Strait roll-on/roll-off general container port  Burnie to become the major bulk commodity (mining products) port but retaining a RORO Bass Strait general cargo service  Devonport being a multi-user port with a specialisation in passenger ferry services to the mainland  Hobart specialising in cruise ships and Antarctic and naval vessels, but retaining a general 188 cargo capability. The strategy informs the State and private sector on its plans, allowing them to develop inter-modal freight hubs around the ports, and supporting transport, production and storage facilities and land use decisions. The Government considers that ports should be publicly owned, and the Tasmanian Ports Corporation ACT 2005 contains a provision that prevents the shareholders selling the 189 Government’s interests in TasPorts without first obtaining the approval of Parliament. The main port’s legislation is the Tasmanian Ports Corporation Act 2005. This Act serves two main purposes. Firstly, it enabled the amalgamation of four port companies into TasPorts, and secondly, it provided the legislative basis for its operation. The Act rescinds the Port Companies Act 1997.

Ports Key government bodies include:  DIER, Infrastructure Policy and Planning Division (Tasmanian Government). This Division is responsible for strategic transport policy and planning, including ports. The Division is developing a Tasmanian Freight Strategy.  Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST). MAST is a statutory authority that manages functions relating to the safe operation of all recreational boats and commercial vessels up to 500 tonnes, 190 or 35 metres in length. While MAST regulates pilotage in port areas, the day-to-day operation of pilotage services is the responsibility of TasPorts. MAST works closely with TasPorts to 191 ensure that large vessels are navigated through ports safely.  Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Australian Government). The Department plays a key role in driving reform to introduce a single, national regulatory system for maritime safety, and facilitates maritime security. Funding TasPorts does not receive government subsidies. It provided $8 million in 2008/09 to the Tasmanian Government in the form of shareholder dividends, income tax equivalents and indirect 192 taxes. The Australian Government, through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, subsidises shippers for the cost disadvantage of transporting freight across the Bass Strait through the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES) and Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme (BSPVES). These schemes provide compensation to shippers of non-bulk commodities. The TFES is estimated to provide an additional $150 to $300 million to the Tasmanian economy annually, while the BSPVES has a substantial impact on the Tasmanian 193 tourism industry.

3.2.3

Sector Trends Growing port throughput Maritime trade in Tasmania is expected to increase considerably over the next 20 years. Forecasts include:  Freight growth over the next 20 years will be about 3% per year for all freight and 3.8% for 194 container freight 195  Total freight movement through the ports will increase to 24.3 million tones by 2023 196  Total freight movement through the ports will increase to 27 million tonnes by 2028.

3.3

Performance

3.3.1

Price and quality of service TasPorts is conducting a pricing review to ensure that it achieves a commercial return on assets. The current pricing regime, carried over from the previous four port corporations, is considered 197 confusing and inconsistent by port users. It is expected that the review will provide an increased level of consistency, transparency and simplicity in the pricing structures in all of the State’s 198 ports. Increased availability of ports’ facilities through capital investment and improved maintenance is one of the aims of the recently introduced asset management system. This system will improve the scheduling of works, and identify trends and the provision of condition reports which will increase the accuracy of maintenance and resources needed. There has been a significant backlog of 199 preventive and corrective maintenance and capital works that is being addressed. In 2008/09, capital expenditure by TasPorts was $14 million bringing its total capital expenditure since 2006 to 45

Transport $46.6 million. Maintenance in 2008/09 was $8 million bringing the total maintenance expenditure 200 over three years to $25.1 million. To improve efficient movement of shipping and cargo through the ports, TasPorts has developed consistent operational procedures and a State-wide pilotage safety management system. The formulation of operational procedures and the pilot safety management system included a revised Marine Pilotage Code and improved pilotage assessment procedures, continual upgrade of vessels and equipment used by pilots, revised risk assessment and incident reporting procedures, and an upgrade of navigation aids and fatigue risk management. Under a State-wide Deed of Agreement, 201 TasPorts acts as agent for Marine and Safety Tasmania on certain maritime matters.

3.3.2

Port security All Tasmanian ports operate under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Offshore Facilities Security Regulation 2003, which reflect the International Ship and Port Facility and Security (ISPS) Code. In May 2009, operations commenced at the $2 million TasPorts Security Operations Centre. This facility, located at Macquarie Wharf in Hobart, comprises a CCTV system of 335 cameras covering 202 all of the State’s major port operations. The Operations Centre provides 24-hour interactive security monitoring. TasPorts recently developed a State-wide Emergency Management Plan, Maritime Security Plan and associated risk assessment procedures that involved revised emergency and oil spill response 203 procedures.

3.3.3

Environmental sustainability Environmental impacts at ports have become more important over the last decade. Environmental issues at Tasmania’s ports are managed using TasPorts’ Environmental Management System. Recently, TasPorts has quantified its carbon footprint, which included measurement of water, power and fuel usage. This information is being used to improve energy use and reduce greenhouse emissions. Noise levels are a concern for urban areas around ports. Recently, Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken across Bell Bay port. In 2009/10, noise monitoring will 204 commence for the Burnie and Hobart ports.

3.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in port infrastructure are:  Maintaining the strategic direction for Tasmania’s ports in the face of short-term commercial decisions. Given the transfer of shipping services from Bell Bay to Burnie port, and the suspension of rail services to Bell Bay, the short-term direction of ports is at odds with TasPort’s strategic direction. Ensuring that the strategic direction is maintained over the long term will be a challenge, but is necessary as Bell Bay Port remains the only major port capable of significant expansion.  Improving road and rail connections at ports. Road connections are inadequate at Hobart, Burnie and Devonport, and rail connections are inadequate at Bell Bay, Devonport and Hobart. While the problems at Hobart Port will be removed with the construction of the Brighton Hub, addressing these problems at the other ports is important in improving freight supply chain efficiency.  Accommodating future freight growth. Freight volumes are expected to grow steadily in the foreseeable future. Currently, only Hobart port experiences congestion. This occurs during the warmer months when cruise ships dock and during the shipping window for voyages to 205 206 Antarctic. However, TasPorts expects that its ports will soon be at full capacity. Over the

Ports short to medium term, growth can be accommodated at Hobart, Burnie and Devonport by onport incremental improvements such as developing additional stevedoring capacity and infrastructure upgrades. However, over the long-term, the growth cannot be accommodated at these ports. Instead, significant changes will be required including upgrades to existing intermodal facilities, reclamation to provide increased storage and handling areas to increase 207 freight capacity, and port specialisation.  Integrating land use decisions with port development. Ports require large amounts of land and generate significant road and rail traffic. Ensuring compatible land use around ports is challenging due to the typically high value of land around ports. The need to consider future port requirements when making nearby urban development decisions is recognised by the Tasmanian Government. However, ensuring that this occurs is challenging and requires that:  Local governments consider the port’s future requirements  Ports better contribute to local and regional planning  Further urban encroachment and other developments are prevented.

3.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Ports

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C+

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s port infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that while capacity at ports is currently adequate, over the longer term, substantial problems will arise due to a lack of efficient and effective integration in the provision of road, rail and port infrastructure. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Developing plans for port improvement in a context of integrated transport planning  Developing a strategic plan for Tasmania’s main ports  Prevention of urban encroachment at the Port of Hobart. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Uncertainty about the future development of the Burnie and Bell Bay ports, and the future of the Tasports’ strategic plan.

Transport

Airports

4.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Airports

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

This rating recognises that the airport infrastructure has improved considerably over the last few years, and is adequate to meet existing and foreseeable future demand. Since 2005, the major airport sector developments have been:  TasPort’s sale of the Hobart Airport  Significant increase in aviation passenger numbers. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  Terminal upgrades at Hobart and Launceston Airports  Development of non-aeronautical functions on airports. Challenges to improving airport infrastructure include:  The need for airports to have better coordination of their commercial developments with local areas  Maintaining the financial viability of multiple airports.

4.2

Infrastructure overview

4.2.1

System Description Airport infrastructure consists of fixed assets on airport land including runways, terminals, buildings (i.e. aeronautical and non-aeronautical industrial, commercial and retail buildings), roads, drainage systems and fencing. Tasmanian airports consist of:  Five major certified airports that must comply with more stringent CASA requirements:  Hobart  Launceston  Devonport  Burnie  King Island.  Five registered airports with a lower capacity  Cambridge  Flinders Island  Smithton  St Helens 208  Strahan. Tasmania is more reliant on air transport than the mainland States where overland alternatives exist. Over 88% of Tasmanian passenger arrivals and departures are by air, and air transport is the 209 only option for time-sensitive freight.

Transport Tasmania is well served by airports, and in the north of the State there are three airports located within two hours’ drive of each other. Only Hobart and Launceston have runways suitable for heavy 210 jet aircraft. Hobart and Launceston airports are curfew-free. Table 4.1 lists the passenger statistics for Tasmania’s major airports over the last three years. Table 4.1: Passenger statistics for Tasmania’s airports211 Airport

Total Revenue Passengers 2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

1,605,978

1,629,417

1,758,241

1,869,262

Launceston

925,637

995,664

1,106,375

1,126,572

Devonport

92,805

88,308

98,706

114,514

Burnie

93,381

87,529

95,275

86,916

Flinders Island

17,834

17,623

18,212

18,741

King Island

28,098

30,066

31,282

33,171

Hobart

Hobart Airport Hobart Airport is operated by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL). The airport was acquired in 2007 by the Tasmanian Gateway Consortium, having been previously owned by the Tasmanian 212 Government through the Tasmanian Ports Corporation. The airport operates under a 50-year 213 lease from the Australian Government, with an option for a further 49 years. The airport is Tasmania’s largest in terms of passengers and contributes to the State’s economy through tourism, airfreight and business development. The airport’s infrastructure consists of:  One sealed 2,251m runway suitable for use by heavy aircraft, including the Boeing 747  Eleven taxiways for ground movements of aircraft  One passenger apron for both domestic and international flights and an additional apron for freight movements  A large domestic terminal and a smaller international terminal  Airfreight terminals 214  An air traffic control tower. HIAPL has the stated goal to ensure that Hobart Airport has the necessary facilities to efficiently 215 handle expected passenger traffic increases. The airport has recently redeveloped the 216 passenger terminal. It has had checked bag security screening since 2007. The only international aviation service currently operating from Hobart is the summer Skytraders service to Antarctica on behalf of the Australian Antarctic Division. A number of international airlines have rights to operate regular services to Hobart, but do not exercise these rights. Hobart has previously had intermittent services to New Zealand operated by a number of carriers since the 217 early 1980s; however, the most recent of these services was suspended in 1998. In 2009, Hobart Airport released its Airport Master Plan–Preliminary Draft. It contains three forecasts for passenger growth as seen in Figure 4.1. Its medium growth forecast sees a 4.1% per annum increase in passenger numbers, with the annual passenger throughput reaching 4.25 218 million by 2029. There is a lack of pedestrian and cycle pathways connecting the airport with the surrounding area, including to the airport hotel.

Airports Figure 4.1: Hobart Airport annual passenger growth forecasts for the 20 year period219 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Historic Passenger Volumes

1,500,000

Low Growth Scenario 3.7% 1,000,000

Medium Gorwth Scenario 4.1%

500,000

High Growth Scenario 4.4%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Launceston Airport Launceston Airport is owned and operated by Australia Pacific Airports (Launceston) Pty Ltd with a 10% share owned by the Launceston City Council. The airport operates under a 50-year lease from 220 the Australian Government, with an option for a further 49 years. Launceston is Tasmania’s second largest airport in terms of passengers and is the primary airport of the State’s north coast. The airport’s infrastructure consists of:  One sealed 1,981m runway, suitable for use by medium jet aircraft, such as the Boeing 737, and limited use by heavy jet aircraft  Two grass runways for light aircraft  Four main taxiways  Three aprons, one for the passenger terminal, one for light aircraft and one for freight  A large domestic terminal, freight terminal and general aviation facilities 221  An air traffic control tower. Around $22 million has been invested in expanding the airport since 2004 to address the growth in passenger numbers. The improvements include:  An expansion of the terminal car parks from 380 to 1,500 spaces  The installation of a dedicated fire mains and fire booster pump  A staged upgrade to the front of terminal access areas 222  The installation of Illuminated Movement Area Guidance signage  The completion in 2010 of a $20 million dollar terminal expansion that increased commercial and passenger facilities and established new security and baggage systems. In 2009, Launceston Airport released its Preliminary Draft Master Plan. It contains three forecasts for passenger growth as seen in Figure 4.2. Its most likely growth forecast sees a 5.5% per annum increase in passenger numbers with the annual passenger throughput reaching 2.3 million by 223 2027/28.

Transport Figure 4.2: Launceston Airport annual passenger number forecasts for the 20-year period224

Devonport Airport Devonport Airport is owned by the Tasmanian Ports Corporation (TasPorts) which is a Government-owned corporation. It is Tasmania’s third largest airport. The Devonport Airport is located 8km from Devonport’s CBD and is the nearest airport to the Cradle Mountain National Park. The airport’s infrastructure consists of:  A sealed 1,838m runway, suitable for turboprop aircraft and possible limited use by light jet aircraft  An 880m grass runway, suitable for use by light aircraft  Four taxiways joining into a terminal apron 225  An adequate passenger terminal. TasPorts has stated that it intends to sell the airport in 2009/10.

226

Burnie Airport Burnie Airport is a small regional airport located 16km west of Burnie on the Bass Highway. The airport is owned by the Burnie Airport Corporation Pty Ltd, which is part-owned by Burnie City Council. The airport’s infrastructure consists of:  One 1,650m sealed runway, suitable for turboprop aircraft  A 767m partly-gravel runway limited to light aircraft  A small terminal and apron connected to runways by two taxiways. King and Flinders Islands Airports The Bass Strait communities of King and Flinders Islands are serviced by two small regional airports. The King Island Airport is located near town of Currie and is owned and operated by King Island Council. Flinders Island Airport is located near the town of Whitemark and is owned and operated by the Flinders Council.

4.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government does not fund or plan airport infrastructure, nor does it influence the airports’ markets through subsidising transport services. It recognises that airlines and airports 227 provide services on a commercial basis and will make infrastructure decisions accordingly. The Tasmanian Government does monitor the airports sector to ensure that services meet the access

Airports needs of the Tasmanian population, visitors and industry. In particular, the services to King and 228 Flinders Islands are monitored to ensure appropriate levels of service. The Tasmanian Government also works with the airport corporations and carriers to develop business cases for service growth in Tasmania. All airports are governed by the Commonwealth Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Hobart and Launceston Airports, located on land owned by the Commonwealth, are also subject to the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996. On-airport planning at Commonwealthleased airports is identified in an airport’s Master Plan. Master plans must be developed by the airport operators to cover the next twenty years and reviewed and updated at no more than fiveyearly intervals. Master plans are required to be approved by the Australian Government Minister for Infrastructure. Major development plans are required for certain types and scale of developments, such as runway extensions, terminal expansions and capital works over $10 million. While the use of master plans is the basis for planning considerations on airports, it stops at airport 229 boundaries and has little, if any, influence off-airport. The regulations and planning policies that influence off-airport planning decisions vary depending on whether or not they are Commonwealthleased airports, or airports that come under the State planning regimes. Airports in Tasmania, apart from Hobart and Launceston, are subject to planning approvals under the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System, with assessment of all developments made by local governments. This process offers opportunity for community input and third party appeals and coordination of development and infrastructure impacts under the relevant planning 230 regime. In December 2009, the Australian Government released the National Aviation Policy White Paper. This will drive an improvement in the better integrated planning at Commonwealth-leased airports by:  Requiring each capital city airport to establish a Planning Coordination Forum that will act as the vehicle to lead the ongoing discussions between the airports and the three levels of government on issues including the Master Plans, the airport’s program for proposed on-airport developments, regional planning initiatives, off-airport development approvals and significant ground transport developments that could affect the airport and its connections  Requiring airports to produce more detailed Master Plans, which will have to contain:  additional detail on proposed use of land in the first five years of a Master Plan, including information on planning for each non-aviation precinct, the number of jobs likely to be created, anticipated traffic flows, and the airport’s assessment of the potential impacts on the local and regional economy and community  the inclusion of a ground transport plan in the Master Plan  the inclusion of a more detailed analysis of how the Master Plan aligns with State, Territory and local government planning laws, as well as a justification for any inconsistencies  Requiring all airports to establish and lead Community Aviation Consultation Groups to ensure that local communities have direct input on airport planning matters, with appropriate arrangements for engagement with other industry stakeholders such as airlines and Airservices Australia where necessary  Prohibiting incompatible developments on federal airport sites, such as residential developments and schools, unless exceptional circumstances exist  Developing a number of initiatives to safeguard both airports and communities from inappropriate off-airport developments that could threaten public safety and the future viability of aviation operations; these would include working with the jurisdictions on national land use 231 planning regimes near airports. The Australian Government is introducing a new airport monitoring regime for second tiered airports. This system will be self-administered and require the public reporting of price and service 53

Transport quality information such as the car parking costs and passenger satisfaction levels. This new 232 regime will apply to Hobart, but not Launceston Airport. Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are:  Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (Australian Government). CASA is an independent statutory authority established in 1995 under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to regulate aviation safety in Australia and the safety of Australian aircraft overseas.  Airservices Australia. Airservices Australia is the monopoly provider of air traffic management and firefighting services at Australia’s major civil airports.  Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Australian Government). The Department has a policy advisory role in aviation and provides advice to the Government on the Commonwealth’s aviation agencies’ strategic direction, their financial and operational performance, and their governance framework. The Department also has a role in leading the development and publishing of major future air traffic policy directions to give effect to the Government’s decisions, as well as leading and coordinating the implementation review processes.  Tasmanian Planning Commission. The Tasmanian Planning Commission is responsible for the planning and approval processes for Tasmanian airports not located on Australian Government land. These processes are conducted through the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System, with the assessment of all development by Local 233 Government.

4.2.3

Sector trends Increasing passenger movements Passenger numbers in Tasmania are forecast to grow incrementally; however, new services such as chartered international flights out of Hobart Airport may result in a large increase. Conversely, unexpected increases in prices or reduction in flight capacity/frequency will reduce numbers. As aviation is the main means of travel to and from Tasmania, large changes in passenger numbers will have a significant impact on Tasmania’s businesses and the community. The Tasmanian Government notes that the State is ‘highly vulnerable to changes affecting the efficient and price 234 competitive delivery of air services’. Conflicts between on-airport development and off-airport land use planning The Tasmanian Government and local government have no control over land use planning decisions at the Commonwealth-leased airports of Hobart and Launceston. This has led to onairport developments that do not mesh with local development and infrastructure plans. The problem arises because these airports are controlled by the Commonwealth’s Airports Act 1996 and this diminishes the ability of the States and local governments to ensure that airport development conforms to broader planning strategies. Specifically, the Act prescribes that airport development plans are exempt from State planning legislation. It only requires airport owners to involve State and local governments in airport planning through seeking comments on draft master plans on a five-yearly cycle. In 2006, the Hobart Airport announced plans to build a large commercial development with Melbourne-based company Austexx being the main investor. The Tasmanian Government believed that this development would generate higher traffic volumes and create a requirement for road 235 infrastructure upgrades. The development was approved by the Australian Government in 2008 2 236 following amendments that limited the development to 10,000m . The development is expected 237 to begin construction in 2010. A similar development has been proposed for Launceston 238 Airport.

Airports

The changes announced under the 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper may assist in improving integrated planning. However, the changes have not fundamentally addressed the problem of Commonwealth-leased airports not being subject to local planning regimes.

4.3

Performance

4.3.1

Airport capacity All of Tasmania’s major airports have adequate on-airport infrastructure capacity to meet expected 239 growth. The terminals at Hobart Airport and Launceston Airport have recently been significantly upgraded. The road connections to Hobart Airport may become more congested as traffic along the Tasman Highway increases.

4.3.2

Airports safety Table 4.2 provides details on air accidents and fatal accident statistics for Tasmania 1999–2009. Table 4.2: Non–fatal and fatal air accidents in Tasmania, 1999 to 31 March 2009240

4.3.3

Tasmania

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

Non–fatal Accidents

Fatal accidents

Fatalities

On-time arrivals Only two Tasmanian airports are monitored for punctuality and reliability by the Bureau of f Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), and these are listed in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: On-time arrivals and departures for February 2010241 Airport

Percentage Ontime Arrivals

Percentage Ontime Departures

Hobart

81.3

83.2

Launceston

80.2

81.9

To put these figures into perspective, in February 2010 Hamilton Airport (Victoria) recorded the highest percentage of on-time departures (91.1%), while Ballina Airport (NSW) recorded the lowest (73%). Port Hedland Airport (WA) recorded the highest percentage of on-time arrivals (94.6%), while Ballina Airport recorded the lowest (72.5%). 4.3.4

Security Following the terrorist incidents on 11 September 2001, the Australian Government introduced additional security requirements, notably through the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, at Australian airports including:  Increased Australian Federal Police presence at airports  100% checked bag screening for all international flights

On time performance is reported for all routes where the passenger load averages over 8000 passengers per month, and where two or more airlines operate in competition.

Transport  

Screening of all domestic checked bags at major airports 242 Limiting liquids, aerosols and gels on international flights.

While security requirements are determined by the Australian Government, airports have the ability to enhance their operational effectiveness via coordination with police, security operators and airlines. The additional security measures, notably the requirement of 100% checked bag screening, contributed to the increase in airports’ costs during 2004/05. Costs incurred included the equipment to screen passengers and checked baggage, and the installation of overt and covert closed-circuit 243 television security cameras. Future security priorities of airports will be to:  Extend security along the supply chain to address the security risk of freight  Expand the counter-terrorism focus of security measures to address other forms of criminal behaviour at airports. Both Hobart Airport and Launceston Airport have full checked bag screening for baggage.

4.3.5

Environmental sustainability Commonwealth-leased airports are required to prepare and maintain an Airport Environment Strategy (AES), which is reviewed and updated every five years. The main intent of an AES is to demonstrate to the Australian Government, key stakeholders and the surrounding community how an airport will manage environmental issues on the airport for that five-year cycle. The Act requires that an airport undertake consultation with key stakeholders and the community prior to the submission of the AES to the Government. Environmental issues on the leased airports are administered principally by Commonwealth legislation, the Airports Act 1996, the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 and the Airport (Building Control) Regulations 1997. The Airport Building Controller (ABC) and the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) are the on-site regulatory representatives for the Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG) which administer the Act and Regulations on behalf of the Australian Government. The larger airports, by their very nature of operations, tend to produce noise and hydrocarbons from aircraft. As such, the implementation of various elements of the environment strategy is important in displaying a proactive approach to manage the impact on the environment. Both Hobart and Launceston Airports have detailed Airport Environment Strategies that outline each airport’s plans for managing the environmental issues arising from each airport’s activities and operations. Greenhouse gas mitigation Civil aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions and this is expected to rise due to growth in the aviation sector. Ways to reduce emissions include improving aircraft fuel efficiency and air traffic management such as continuous descent approaches. A challenge for the aviation sector will be the impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). If it results in subsidies for alternative modes of travel (e.g. fuel credit for heavy on-road transport businesses), there is a risk that the exclusion of the aviation industry from comparable assistance may have the effect of creating a structural competitive distortion in the market for passenger travel and freight. Tasmania’s major airports are working to control their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Launceston Airport has set a target to apply Green Star sustainability objectives to major new 244 developments and major refurbishments from 2010. Hobart Airport will investigate opportunities

Airports to minimise or reduce the use of natural resources when specific development or operational 245 projects eventuate.

4.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in airport infrastructure are:  The need for airports to have better coordination of their commercial developments with local areas. On-airport commercial development, which is outside local planning regimes, can cause economic and social problems if it is not integrated with local land use and planning requirements. In particular, the additional traffic volumes that arise from large-scale commercial development at Hobart and Launceston Airports can result in local road congestion and increased local road maintenance. Coordination between the airport owners and the DIER/local governments is necessary to ensure that traffic problems do not arise.  Maintaining the financial viability of multiple airports. In the north of the State, there are three airports all within two hours’ drive of each other. This number may be economically unsustainable.

4.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Airports

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s airports infrastructure has been rated B. This rating recognises that the airport infrastructure has improved considerably over the last few years, and is adequate to meet existing and foreseeable future demand. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  All major airports have adequate capacity to cope with forecast growth  All major airports are well maintained. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Commercial on-airport development has the potential to cause congestion problems on local roads and land use conflicts.

Transport

WATER Integrated water cycle policy and practice The water situation in Tasmanian is quite different from most mainland States. Tasmania has abundant water resources and has not suffered widespread water stress to urban water supplies this decade. Although there have been areas of drought in Tasmania and historic low inflows into hydro-electricity water reservoirs, water supply and irrigation dams, these have not been sufficiently large to require urban water restrictions. A key feature of Tasmania’s urban water storage is that they typically are lower in size than might be encountered on the mainland. Tasmania has about 12% of Australia’s fresh water, although it comprises just 1% of Australia’s 246 land mass and has 2% of its population. Most rain falls in the south west. The figure below shows the average rainfall in Tasmania. Average rainfall in Tasmania247

Tasmania’s annual water resource consists of 44,800GL from surface runoff and up to 2,500GL 248 249 from groundwater. In 2004/05, total water consumption in Tasmania was 434GL. The figure below shows the rainfall and run-off for major catchments used for hydro power and water supply intakes.

Water Rainfall and run-off for major catchments250

The figure below shows that agriculture is the largest water consumer, followed by households and 251 industry. In 2008/09, the volume of urban water consumed was 75.8GL. Water consumption in Tasmania, 2004/05252 Manufacturing 2% Mining 1% Forestry and fishing >1%

Electricty and Water supply gas supply 11% 1%

Households 10%

Other 5%

Agriculture 70%

Despite the benign water environment, Tasmania may experience supply shortages as population and industry grows, and if the effects of climate change significantly alter the existing rainfall, runoff and evaporation rates. The requirement to ensure the sustainable use of water, both for environmental and consumptive purposes, has resulted in the Tasmanian Government working to ensure appropriate environmental flows, as well as improving the efficiency of consumptive use. The framework to determine appropriate environmental flows is the Tasmanian Environmental Flows Framework (TEFF). Work completed in late 2009 after the Tasmanian Environmental Flows Project tested and refined the TEFF, allowing an improved method of allocating and developing 253 water resources. 60

Water

The need to improve consumptive use of water was one of the reasons for the 2008/09 regulatory and structural reform to the water supply and sewerage sector. These reforms aim to:  Drive water service providers to meet accepted modern environmental and public health standards  Produce financial returns to enable long-term sustainability of assets; previous returns were 254 around 2% to 3%, which led to an inability to service debt and invest in infrastructure  Introduce consumption-based pricing. Tasmania does not have a single, strategic water policy document spanning all water sources and uses. However, water objectives are embedded in numerous strategy documents such as the Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change (2008). Water project priorities are identified in the Water Development Plan for Tasmania (2001) and Drought Proofing Tasmania (2008). While the Tasmanian Government is ultimately responsible for decisions about water policy, its decisions are bounded by it being a signatory to the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI is an agreement signed by all Australian States and Territories in 2004. The NWI aims to provide a longterm, national plan for water reform. It has the objective of increasing the productivity and efficiency of water use and the health of river and groundwater systems in Australia by building a nationallycompatible market, regulatory and planning system of managing surface and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimise economic, social and environmental outcomes. By signing it, the Tasmania Government has agreed to:  Prepare water plans with provision for the environment  Deal with over-allocated or stressed water systems  Introduce registers of water rights and standards for water accounting  Expand the trade in water  Improve pricing for water storage and delivery 255  Meet and manage urban water demands. The Tasmanian Government has made significant progress in many of the NWI objectives and this was identified in the 2009 assessment of Tasmania’s performance by the National Water Commission. It acknowledged Tasmania’s establishment of independent economic regulation to improve the efficiency and accountability of water sector organisations, and to improve transparency of water pricing. However, it expressed concern that Tasmania’s new irrigation projects may repeat past mistakes of government-driven irrigation development in other parts of 256 Australia.

Water

Case study: Meander Dam The project to construct the Meander Dam in Tasmania demonstrates the value of broadly-based infrastructure planning. This scheme involves the catchment and storage of winter rains that can then be released for irrigation use over the summer season. The water is released via a mini hydro scheme that provides additional renewable energy-generating capacity to the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s network. The water regulation also allows better control over environmental flow requirements of the river ecosystem. The inundation area allows for recreational activities. When the associated pipelines are installed, this scheme will allow for increased agricultural productivity, which will also provide further employment in this sector, will produce electric power, and will provide environmental benefits. This project is an example of one which has triple bottom line (economic, social, and environmental) benefits. Meander Dam

Image courtesy of Rivers and Water Supply Commission

Potable water

5.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Potable Water

Tasmania 2010 B-

Tasmania 2005 C Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

B-

This rating recognises that the current infrastructure is largely adequate and the 2009 reforms of the water sector will significantly improve water services, provided that the committed funding materialises. Since the last Report Card, the major potable water sector developments have been:  Major structural and regulatory reform to the potable water sector  Increases in water price  A plan for the State-wide rollout of water meters by 2012/13. Recently completed and in-progress infrastructure projects include:  $6.1 million construction of a new reservoir at Mornington, pipe works and a pump station at Warrane as part of the Howrah-Warrane Augmentation (Clarence City Council)  $1.4 million replacement of a section of the Lake Fenton pipeline which carries drinking water from the lake in the Mt Field National Park to the Hobart area  $8.5 million project to upgrade Swansea’s potable supply system by constructing a 400ML storage dam, building new pipelines and constructing a treatment plant to remove the town’s 257 boil water alert  $22.6 million to construct the Huon Valley Regional Water Scheme which will see the towns of Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston and Cygnet being serviced with a potable water supply that 258 complies with the Australian Drinking Water Standards Scheme (Huon Valley Council)  $10 million replacement of the Distillery Creek water treatment plant (Launceston City Council). Challenges to improving potable water infrastructure include:  Determining appropriate standards of service in peri-urban areas  Adoption of common infrastructure design and construction standards for donated assets  Developing master plans for urban and regional water services  Eliminating unsafe water supplies to communities  Obtaining the required level of investment  Establishment and growth of Water and Sewerage Corporations  Developing comprehensive asset knowledge  Understanding and managing climate change impacts on reliability of potable water supply systems.

5.2

Infrastructure overview

5.2.1

System description Tasmania’s potable water infrastructure comprises:  Water distribution storage facilities (251 facilities)  Water pumping stations (141 stations)  Treatment facilities (60 facilities)  Reticulated water network (5,356km of water main). 63

Water Key statistics on Tasmania’s water infrastructure are:  Approximately 84% of Tasmanians receive their drinking water from a public drinking water 259 supply system  All water supply systems are fluoridated for towns with populations greater than 1,000 people; 260 about 83% of Tasmanians receive fluoridated water  Over 99% of urban water is sourced from surface water with the rest extracted from 261 groundwater. Tasmanian potable water services are provided by the following three Water and Sewerage Corporations (WSCs):  Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Northern Region) Pty Ltd trading as Ben Lomond Water  Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (North-Western Region) Pty Ltd trading as Cradle Mountain Water  Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Southern Region) Pty Ltd trading as Southern Water. Figure 5.2: The WSCs operational areas (divided into local government areas)262

Potable water The assets of the WSCs are those transferred from local governments (29 local councils), bulk water authorities (Hobart Water, Esk Water and Cradle Coast Water) and the Tasmanian Government fluoridation assets. These assets and some 650 staff were transferred to the WSCs, which became responsible for water services on 1 July 2009. The WSCs are owned by local councils, and will pay dividends to them each year. Figure 5.1 shows the WSCs’ operational areas. Supporting services, such as billing, payroll, IT platforms, corporate governance and 263 communications advice for each of the WSCs is provided by Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Common Services) Pty Ltd, trading as Onstream. Onstream is owned by the three WSCs. Key assets of Tasmania’s water infrastructure are listed in Table 5.1 and consist of:  Water treatment plants. These plants receive raw water and treat them to one of three levels – disinfection only, further treatment, or full treatment, which can include addressing turbidity, colour, taste, odour, pH, and high levels of iron, manganese and nitrates.  Pumping stations. These stations either transfer water to a reservoir or boost supply water at pressure to a distribution system.  Water distribution storage facilities. These facilities are principally covered tanks that store small volumes of water for relatively short periods.  Water mains. These are either trunk or reticulation pipelines that distribute water from treatment plants to storages and to the community. Table 5.1: WSC infrastructure assets (June 2009)264 Region

Number of water treatment plants providing full treatment

Number of water treatment plants providing further treatment

Number of water treatment plants providing disinfection only

Number of water pumping stations

Number of water distribution storage facilities

Length of water mains (km)

Southern

126

2,676

North-western

1,067

1,613

141

251

5,356

Northern Total

The number of water customers, staff and properties served per km of water main is listed in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Water customers (June 2009)265 Region or WSC

Staff266

Water customers

Properties served per km of water main

Southern

95,116

280

30.5

North-western

42,270

135

36.4

Northern

54,145

180

28.0

191,531

645

Onstream Total

Capital and operational (renewals or replacements) expenditure on infrastructure is listed in Table 5.3.

Water Table 5.3: Capital expenditure 2007/08 and 2008/09267 Region

2007/08 new capital works ($)

2007/08 renewal or replacement ($)

2007/08 totals ($)

2008/09 new capital works ($)

2008/09 renewal or replacement ($)

2008/09 totals ($)

Southern

2,580,356

4,564,525

7,144,881

4,518,351

3,888,373

8,406,724

Northwestern

1,629,000

3,969,069

5,598,069

181,099

7,790,727

7,971,826

Northern

1,349,000

2,451,000

3,800,000

8,188,614

239,664

8,428,278

Total

5,558,356

10,984,594

16,542,950

12,888,064

11,918,764

24,806,828

Each WSC has a water allocation licence given to it by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). The allocation and the actual water consumed for 2007/08 are listed in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Regional comparison of water allocations and consumption (2008/09)268 Region Southern

Total Allocation (ML)

Total Consumption (ML)

Consumed water (% of allocation)

113,541

42,449

North-western

26,878

18,092

Northern

41,616

18,169

182,035

78,710

Total

Installation of water meters varies across Tasmania. Eighteen out of Tasmania’s 29 local 269 governments are substantially metered. For Southern Water, about 19,400 of its 90,000 customers have metered properties mostly around Richmond. The large urban areas of greater Hobart, notably Clarence, Hobart, Glenorchy and Kingborough, do not have residential water 270 meters. The North and North-western regions have a much greater percentage of water meter 271 installations than the Southern region. A 2009 report produced for the Department of Treasury and Finance on meter rollout options 272 established a strong cost benefit for AMR (Automated Meter Reading) implementation. The Tasmanian Government has committed to a plan for the State-wide rollout of water meters by 2012/13. Consumer water costs in Tasmania are based on one of two methods. They are:  Two-part tariffs. This consists of a fixed component (known as an access charge), and a usage component, based on how much water is consumed.  Assessed annual value (AAV). AAV is a single part tariff allocated on the basis of property value 273 g h and has no relevance to the amount of water used. The billing method applied in each local government area is illustrated in Figure 5.2. The water bills in the 2009/10 year provided by Onstream are calculated using the same basis as had been used 274 in the preceding year by the local governments that had previously owned the water assets.

Currently across the RWC’s areas of responsibility, there are inconsistencies of how the two methods are calculated. For example, some councils have a free water allowance and other do not; some councils use as the basis of their fixed charge a per connection charge, while others use pipe size. http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/Factsheet-Water-Sewerage-PricingRegulation.pdf/$file/Factsheet-Water-Sewerage-Pricing-Regulation.pdf. h In most cases, the free allowance is within the 250-400kL range, which compares with typical indoor household use of the order of 200kL. Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 80.

Potable water Figure 5.2: The billing method applied across Tasmania275

All WSCs have to apply two-part pricing from 1 July 2012. Until 2012, pricing decisions for potable water will be made by the Tasmanian Treasurer through an Interim Pricing Order (IPO). The first 276 IPO was made in 2009 and allowed for an increase for water and sewage services of up to 10%. In 2009/10, Tasmanians for the first time received separate water and sewerage bill; previously, the cost of these services was factored into the rates notices of local governments. On average, water 277 and sewerage costs made up about 30% of rates. Consequently, after factoring in the IPO, the average bill should be about 33% of the previous local governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bill. The WSCsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; public information campaign suggested that the local governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rates bills would be reduced by up to 278 30%. There are two main reasons why there is significant variation in the actual amounts being charged by both WSCs and local government. They are that the local government rates coincide with a property revaluation, and the expected dividends to local governments from the WSC in the first few years will be lower than expected, resulting in local governments facing deficits unless rates are raised. From 2012, pricing determinations will be made by the Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator (OTTER). Following community complaints about significant price rises, in November 2009 the Tasmanian Government capped the increase at 5% this financial year and for 279 the next two years until an independent review in 2012/13. Unlike mainland States, Tasmania has not suffered any urban water shortages to its major centres in the last decade.

Water 5.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government’s potable water objective is that the water sector becomes i sustainable and provides services that meet current and future community and business needs. Key legislation consists of:  Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. This Act establishes the regulatory arrangements for Tasmania’s water and sewerage sector, and includes:  An operating licence regime for participants  Independent regulation of prices for regulated services  Customer service standard-setting framework that will mandate minimum standards  Requiring licensed entities to provide a Price and Service Plan, similar to Tasmania’s Water Plans, requiring licensed entities to adopt enhanced asset management planning  Enhanced public performance reporting requirements  An ombudsman to deal with customer complaints.280  Water and Sewerage Corporations Act 2008.  Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. This Act is the primary environment protection legislation in Tasmania and its focus is on preventing environmental harm from pollution and waste management.  Public Health Act 1997. Policies and strategies that regulate the quality and management of Tasmania’s potable water resources are:  State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997). This policy aims to achieve the sustainable management of Tasmania’s surface and groundwater resources.  National Water Quality Management Strategy. This strategy provides a nationally consistent approach to water quality management.  Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004).  Tasmanian Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy (2003). This Strategy supports the development and implementation of the State Policy on Water Quality Management through identification of the need for a standard and consistent water quality monitoring strategy, including regular baseline monitoring, creation of a centralised database, and a review of regulatory reporting.  Guidelines for Water Quality. These Guidelines, issued under the Public Health Act 1997, establish best practice frameworks for controlling authorities to effectively manage drinking water and recreational water quality. They require the WSCs to manage their drinking water supply systems in accordance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004). If drinking water quality is, or is likely to become, a threat to public health, water suppliers are expected to 281 take corrective action to protect public health and resolve the cause of the problem.  NWI Implementation Plan (2006). By signing the National Water Initiative Agreement, Tasmania agreed that actions under the NWI will be implemented in accordance with a defined 282 timetable. Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are:  National Water Commission (NWC). The NWC is responsible for driving progress towards the sustainable management and use of Australia’s water resources under our blueprint for water reform, the National Water Initiative. The Commission advises the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Australian Government on national water issues and the progress of the National Water Initiative.

Adapted from the objective of the Water and Sewerage Industry Bill 2008 which is to ‘support the sustainable operation of the water and sewerage sector and the protection of customers through ensuring that services will meet community and business needs both now and into the future’.

Potable water 

 

5.2.3

Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator (OTTER). OTTER is the economic regulator that sets prices (after 2012), establishes minimum customer service standards and monitors the performance of the WSCs. Tasmanian Ombudsman. The Ombudsman investigates customer complaints relating to the WSCs. Environment Protection Authority Tasmania (EPAT). The EPAT has responsibility for the management and protection of Tasmania’s environment through administration and enforcement of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Director of Public Health (Tasmanian Government). The Director is responsible for public health relating to the regulation of water quality. Urban Water Policy Unit (Tasmanian Government). This unit is within the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) and develops and coordinates policies relating to the regulation of the water and sewerage industry.

Sector trends Population-driven water consumption growth Population growth has a direct impact on water consumption. Today, each Tasmanian uses 143kL 283 annually. Consumption per capita is expected to decrease due to price rises, the introduction of metering, and consumers being more water conscious. Infrastructure renewal and expansion A significant program of infrastructure renewal and expansion is being undertaken to address wellknown problems such as the need to bring 33 towns’ water supply up to contemporary 284 standards. The Tasmanian Government has stated that the amount required will be $1 billion, covering both 285 water and sewerage infrastructure, over the next decade. The 2006 Discussion Paper of the Ministerial Water And Sewerage Taskforce noted that the quality of information about water assets was patchy, and as such, ‘estimates have been made by stakeholders regarding the level of investment required to bring the State’s water and sewerage infrastructure to contemporary 286 standards, ranging from $100 million to $400 million’. The final amount invested will be driven principally by the profitability of the WSCs, the Tasmanian Government investment, and contributions made by the Australian Government. None of the WSCs have yet developed a 10year plan for infrastructure investment as they are only currently building a standardised asset database across their areas of operations. Consequently, their program of works is based on shortterm projects in train prior to the 2008/09 reforms. Short-term projects are listed below. Table 5.5 details major projects underway across Tasmania. Table 5.5: WSCs’ current major potable water projects (over $250,000 as of January 2010)287 Project name

Total Project Cost

Expected completion date

Description

Ben Lomond Water Campbell Town Water Treatment Plant

$4,500,000

March 2011

Construction of new DAFF plant to provide treated water to Campbell Town and Ross

Distillery Creek Water Treatment Plant

$10,200,000

April 2010

New DAFF plant to replace existing treatment plant that is at the end of its useable life

Scamander Water Treatment Plant

$1,150,000

July 2010

Installation of new Ultra filtration plant to provide treated water to Scamander

Longford To Cressy Trunk Water Main

$1,400,000

September 2010

Pipeline to supply treated water to Cressy

Water Project name

Total Project Cost

Expected completion date

Description

Southern Water Swansea Water Scheme

$7,844,502

Feb 2011

New water system-storages, pumping, treatment and transfer works

National Park Fluoridation Upgrade

$300,000

June 2010

Replacement of fluoridation equipment

Bryn Estyn WTP Plant upgrades

$746,650

June 2010

Switchboard & automation upgrades

Ellendale WTP Upgrade

$200,000

Feb 2010

Ultrafiltration membrane WTP

Reservoir Roofing Program

$295,000

Jan 2010

Installation of roofs to Richmond & Tranmere Reservoirs

June 2010

New water storage, pump station and transfer works to WTP

Bicheno Off Stream Storage & Assoc Works

$1,500,000

Lenah Valley Water Supply Augmentation

$2,815,000

Huon Regional Sewerage Upgrades

$1,300,000

March 2010

Rannelah and Geeveston WWTP upgrades

Huon Regional Water Scheme

$24,200,000

June 2012

Transfer of treated Huon River water to Port Huon, Geeveston, Craddock, Cygnet & Franklin townships

Howden Water Main

New reservoir and pump station

$387,409

New distribution main

Cradle Mountain Water Burnie Water Treatment Plant

$700,000

February 2011

Improve pH and hardness control to reduce corrosive index

Forth to Spreyton Trunk Water Main

$6,600,000

November 2010

Pump station, pipeline and reservoir to provide treated water to areas of Devonport

Queenstown Water Treatment Plant

$5,000,000

June 2010

New water treatment plant to supply treated water to Queenstown

$640,000

February 2011

Replace corroded roof and reline internal surface to prevent further corrosion

Leven Street Water Main replacement Ulverstone

$320,000

June 2010

Replace 1930s cast iron main

Forth Water Treatment Plant

$350,000

January 2010

Replacement of existing launders and vacuum system due to corrosion

Big Kelcey Reservoir - Devonport

$350,000

January 2010

Relining of internal surface to prevent further corrosion

Kimberleys Reservoir, Ulverstone

5.3

Performance Key parameters to assess infrastructure performance are the water supply network reliability, customer satisfaction and biological compliance. A measure of water supply network reliability is the number of water supply interruptions. The average of water main breaks per 100km of water main for the three regions is listed in Table 5.6. The number of breaks varies considerably across the regions, with the lowest number of breaks being reported by Devonport City Council (four breaks per 100km) and the highest reported by 288 West Coast Council (227 breaks per 100km). The larger cities reported lower average rates of 289 water main breaks. While breaks are typically related to the age, material type, construction standard and condition of the water mains, they are also driven by soil and the environmental conditions. Typically, the cycling of expansive clays leads to a peaking of bursts as the soil dryness 290 index peaks. These moisture cycles are more responsible for main breaks.

Potable water Table 5.6: Water main breaks291 Region

Water main breaks (per 100km of water main)

Southern

57.4

North-western

37.78

Northern

24.3

Water losses are reported for only a few areas. However, from the data reported, it appears that between 10% and 47% of water is lost from reticulation systems. This figure is huge by Australian 292 standards, indicating that some networks are in very poor condition. Water quality complaints by consumers reflect their concerns about colour, taste and odour. The North-western region experienced the most number of complaints. The local government areas experiencing the highest complaints were Devonport, Burnie, Kentish, Central Coast and Circular Head. Launceston and Northern Midlands experienced the most number of complaints in the 293 Northern region, and Southern Midlands and Glamorgan-Spring Bay in the Southern region. Bacteriological compliance of water supply systems reflect that safe water is produced. To comply, the systems need to meet standards in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2004 and the Drinking Water Quality Guidelines as per the Public Health Act 1997. The bacteriological compliance criterion prescribed in legislation is that 98% of drinking water samples collected from 294 the drinking water supply system do not contain any E.coli or thermotolerant coliforms. Table 5.7 lists compliance levels. Eight out of 59 systems with known compliance (that is, 14%) did not achieve compliance. A total of 27 out of 85 systems (that is, 32%) had unknown compliance due to inadequate sampling and testing. Table 5.7: Bacteriological compliance of drinking water supply systems295 Region

Number of drinking water supply systems

Number of systems that achieved compliance

Number of systems that did not achieve compliance

Number of systems with unknown compliance

Southern

North-western

Northern

Total

There are 23 drinking water supply systems that do not have any water treatment processes as shown in Table 5.8. These are the systems that have permanent boil notices in place. Boil notices 296 recommend that a minimum of one minute of boiling is needed for the water to be safe. The Northern region had the largest number of systems with permanent boil notices in effect. These alerts mean that nearly 5,000 people are on a permanent boiled water alert or 1.1% of the 297 Tasmanian population. Table 5.8: Incidence of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;boil waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; alerts298 Region

Number of drinking water supply systems with permanent boil water alerts

Number of water supply systems with temporary boil water alerts

Southern

North-western

Northern

Total

Water 5.3.1

Environmental sustainability Sustainable use of water requires that the consumptive use of water can continue to occur without substantial social, economic and environment damage. In Tasmania, the relative abundance of water resources in most locations has reduced the pressure on reducing demand or substitution. However, incentives have been provided to introduce measures such as water-efficient appliances, dual-flush toilets, improved water efficiency in gardens, restrictions on the use of hoses and 299 sprinklers, and incentives to householders for installing rainwater tanks to capture roof drainage. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting for changing climate is a priority for the WSCs. The WSCs are introducing carbon accounting, which will have a significant impact on the costing of water supply services. They also attempt to use much gravity-fed supply to minimise pumping costs.

5.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving potable water infrastructure include:  Determining appropriate standards of service in peri-urban areas. The majority of planning schemes in Tasmania fall short of discussing water and sewerage infrastructure capability and standards of service at a master planning level. As a consequence, existing infrastructure in many peri-urban (fringe) development areas may be undersized to comply with national standards of service; in particular, fire protection. Customer expectations are, however, steadily rising to those of residential areas in capital cities as new fringe settlers seek a lower cost Australian dream home and yard.  Developing master plans for urban and regional water services. The majority of local governments did not have infrastructure master plans for their high growth areas, leaving the new water authorities in a difficult position responding to significant development applications with limited knowledge of infrastructure capacity issues while still achieving statutory development response timeframes. The development of master plans is a high priority for the water authorities.  Eliminating unsafe water supplies to communities. There are 23 drinking water supply systems that do not have any water treatment processes. This means that about 5,000 people are on permanent boil notices. Ensuring that these communities have safe water supplies is critical.  Obtaining the required level of investment. While $1 billion of investment is recognised as being required, funds may not actually be available to do this. This is because most of the funds will be derived from WSC profit, and this may be lower than expected due to the high costs of establishing the WSCs and the cap on water price increases. Given the pressure on the WSC to ensure a reasonable dividend to the local governments, many of whom are under financial pressure, reduced profits may lead to less funds being available for investment  Establishment and growth of WSCs. The focus of the WSCs over the next few years will be on becoming efficient in their operations, particularly in their billing. There will be considerable effort spent on standardising information, systems and procedures across the assets and workforces previously owned by the local governments and bulk water suppliers. Considerable effort will also be spent on issues of dividend allocation, building reporting systems to meet the new regulatory arrangements, and preparing for the post-2012 ownership arrangements. These priorities may reduce the focus on infrastructure improvement. The necessity of maintaining three separate WSCs plus Onstream will need further examination to ensure that it offers the most effective way of delivering water and wastewater services.  Developing comprehensive asset knowledge. There is a lack of standardised information on asset conditions and needs across the WSCs areas of responsibilities. This makes it difficult to determine and justify investment decisions, and consequently may slow the rollout of projects.  Understanding and managing climate change impacts on reliability of potable water supply systems. Climate change has the potential to create significant risks to potable water

Potable water supply, notably through lower rainfall and runoff, and increased frequency of droughts and bushfires. While the anticipated impacts are not expected to be significant in the medium term (see Overview chapter), monitoring changes will be important.

5.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Potable Water

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

B-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s potable water infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that the current infrastructure is largely adequate and the 2009 reforms of the water sector will significantly improve water services, providing the committed funding materialises. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Formation of the WSCs providing uniformity in planning, constructions and ongoing management  Increase in capital works to improve water services  Improvements in water supply for small communities  Increase in water quality monitoring leading to more accurate reporting and improvement of community health Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  The short time frame given for restructuring of the water and sewerage sector  The shortage of human resources in the WSCs to implement their capital works and operations  The water engineering skills base of local governments, which is still needed for managing stormwater and floodplains, has been diminished with the transfer of many water engineering professionals to the WSCs.

Water

Wastewater

6.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Wastewater

Tasmania 2010 C

Tasmania 2005 C- Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

C+

C-

This rating recognises that improvements have been made in recent years to infrastructure in problem areas and that there have been significant increases in the volumes of recycled water used. The 2009 reforms of the water and sewerage sector will significantly improve sewerage services, provided the committed funding materialises. Since the last Report Card, the major sewerage sector developments have been:  Major structural and regulatory reform to the wastewater sector  Increase in wastewater prices. There have also been a number of completed and in-progress projects with the major ones being:  Expansion of the Clarence Recycled Water Scheme  Significant sewer main replacement works in the Sorell Council area to improve hydraulic capacity and overcome persistent blockages associated with the old existing pipelines  Upgrading of the Smithton Pelican Point wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)  Construction of the $5.2 million Cambridge WWTP, which allows five old-style WWTPs to be decommissioned  Upgrading of the Ulverstone WWTP and outfall (Central Coast Council). Challenges to improving wastewater infrastructure include:  Managing the decentralised WWTPs to achieve their compliance standard  Increasing the level of asset knowledge, focusing on improving outcomes and funding  Utilising wastewater for productive purposes  Addressing climate change risk for sewerage infrastructure  Reducing the frequency and impact of sewerage system blockages and overflows due to stormwater infiltration.

6.2

Infrastructure overview

6.2.1

Sewerage system description Tasmania’s sewerage water infrastructure comprises:  Sewers (4,333km of sewer main)  Pumping stations (687 stations)  Wastewater treatment plants (one primary treatment plant, 67 secondary treatment plants and eight tertiary treatment plants). The sewerage system carries sewage produced by domestic households and by businesses/industrial operations (known as trade waste). Charges for domestic sewage are based on a fixed charge that is indirectly based on household water usage. This charge is based on Assessed Annual Value (AAV). Charges for trade waste are based on volume and pollutant load, and are negotiated between the polluter and the operator of the wastewater system.

Water

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Tasmania are divided into two categories:  Level 1 WWTPs that have a maximum throughput volume of less than 100 kilolitres per day, do not require approval to operate from the EPA, but must still comply with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA)  Level 2 WWTPs plants that have a minimum throughput volume of 100 kilolitres per day, are regulated by the EPA and are considered a Level 2 activity under the EMPCA. Tasmania has 28 Level 1 and 78 Level 2 WWTPs owned and operated by three regional water 300 corporations. Because of the small throughput volume of Level 1 WWTPs, this section only addresses Level 2 WWTPs. Tasmanian sewerage services are provided by three Water and Sewerage Corporations (WSC), which are described in detail in the Potable Water section. They are:  Ben Lomond Water, covering the Northern Region  Cradle Mountain Water, covering the North-western Region  Southern Water covering the Southern Region. Wastewater is treated to one of the following three levels:  Primary treatment. This involves removing solids from the water and allowing a proportion of the suspended solids and organic matter to settle out. The settled solids, referred to as sludge, are removed and treated separately.  Secondary treatment. This involves further treatment of the primary treated effluent to reduce the proportion of the dissolved or suspended organic matter. It usually involves disinfection by chlorination, ozonisation or UV radiation.  Tertiary treatment. This treatment removes a high percentage of suspended solids and/or nutrients using techniques including flocculation, coagulation, clarification and advanced filtration. It is then followed by disinfection. The main aim of this treatment is to remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus and further reduce the remaining organic material and 301 harmful micro-organisms in the secondary-treated effluent. Table 6.1 lists Tasmania’s sewerage assets. Table 6.1: Sewerage assets in Tasmania302 Region

Sewage pumping stations

Length of sewerage mains and channels (km)

Primary treatment WWTPs*

Secondary treatment WWTPs*

Total number of WWTPs*

Southern

266

1,883

Northwestern

213

1,041

Northern

208

1,409

Total

687

4,333

* only includes Level 2 WWTPs

Tasmania’s sewerage customer characteristics are listed in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Tasmania’s regional sewerage customer characteristics303 Region Southern

Tertiary treatment WWTPs*

Population receiving sewage services

Sewerage customers304

Properties served per km of sewer main

175,655

86,842

North-western

61,256

39,388

Northern

83,702

48,866

Wastewater For the 2008/09 period, expenditure on sewerage infrastructure totalled over $32 million. The breakdown for regions is listed in Table 6.3. Table 6.3: Capital expenditure 2007/08 and 2008/09305 Region

2007/08 new capital works ($)

2007/08 renewal or replacement ($)

2007/08 totals ($)

2008/09 new capital works ($)

2008/09 renewal or replacement ($)

2008/09 totals ($)

Southern

4,922,250

4,999,328

9,921,578

12,937,928

5,128,123

18,066,051

Northwestern

2,264,000

4,172,283

1,809,912

2,805,101

Northern

1,823,000

2,978,520

4,801,520

9,450,863

34,746

9,485,609

Total

9,009,250

12,150,131

21,159,381

24,198,703

7,967,970

32,166,673

6,436,283

4,615,013

The total volume of wastewater discharged from all Level 2 WWTPs was 56,265ML for 2007/08. The regional breakdown was:  Southern region with 21,794ML/year  Northern region with 22,834ML/year 306  North-western region with 13,654ML/year. Figure 6.1 details the volume discharged from each treatment level. Some 81% of all discharge is treated to a secondary level. There is only one Level 2 WWTP that has discharged effluent treated to only the primary level. This is the Pardoe Beach WWTP (Devonport Council) and discharges 307 from the end of a 1km long ocean outfall. Figure 6.1: Wastewater treatment level (ML/year, percentage of total volume discharged)308

Primary, 6771 ML, 12%

Tertiary, 3719 ML, 7%

Secondary, 45775 ML, 81%

The Southern region has the greatest proportion of tertiary treatment WWTPs as illustrated in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Level of treatment by region (ML/year)309 25000 20000 15000

Tertiary

10000

Secondary

5000

Primary

0 Southern region

North-Western region

Northern region

Water

Discharges from the 78 Level 2 WWTPs consist of:  30 with outfalls to estuarine or bay waters with a total discharge of 3,737,467ML or 64% of all discharge  34 to inland waters with a total discharge of 5,476ML or 9% of all discharge 310  13 with marine outfalls with a total discharge of 10,573ML or 18% of all discharge.

6.2.2

Recycled water Recycled water infrastructures comprise those wastewater treatment plants producing water that is reused rather than discharged as wastewater. Recycled water is water derived from sewerage systems treated to a standard appropriate for its intended use. There are four classes of recycled water quality with Class A being the highest. The categories are:  Class A, which uses a tertiary treatment process combined with pathogen removal. Uses include residential garden watering, toilet flushing, irrigation of municipal parks and sportsgrounds, and food crops that are consumed raw or sold to consumers uncooked or unprocessed.  Class B, which uses secondary treatment process, combined with some pathogen reduction. Uses include irrigation of dairy cattle grazing fodder, urban (non-potable) uses with restricted public access and closed industrial systems.  Class C, which uses a secondary treatment process combined with minor pathogen reduction. Uses include water for cooked/processed human food crops, grazing/fodder for cattle, sheep and horses, and urban (non-potable) uses with restricted public access.  Class D, which uses a secondary treatment process. Uses include water for non-food crops 311 such as woodlots, turf growing and flowers. In Tasmania, recycled water is not used as potable water, either directly or injected into any potable water source (called indirect potable reuse). The Tasmanian Government currently has no public plans to use recycled water for potable use. As Tasmania has a relatively high rainfall, recycling has been primarily oriented towards improved environmental outcomes and economic development of agriculture. In Tasmania, recycled water is used on golf courses, agricultural land, nurseries and recreational areas as well as for heat recovery. The largest recycled water project is the Clarence Recycled j Water Scheme. It commenced operation in 2006 and takes recycled water from the Rosny, Cambridge and Richmond WWTPs and pumps it through a pipeline along the Coal Valley to 312 Richmond and Seven Mile Beach. Currently 28 irrigators are connected to the Scheme. In 2008, the Australian Government provided $10.5 million under its National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns program to expand its capacity to a potential of 3,000ML/year over time. This upgrade 313 is scheduled for completion prior to the 2010/11 irrigation season. Class A recycled water projects operate in:  Cradle Valley. This project will use recycled water for toilet flushing, garden watering and firefighting. The WWTP is expected to be commissioned in early 2010, with the recycling component to be phased in over time.  Cambridge. This project will provide effluent treated to Class A quality for recycling on local golf courses and a plant nursery. The WWTP for the project has been constructed and is now operational.

The CRW is the first stage in the business case prepared in 2007 for the South East Tasmania Recycled Water Scheme.

Wastewater

The key document defining wastewater reuse is the Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania (2002). It provides guidance on the planning, design, operation and monitoring of wastewater re-use systems. It also defines the procedures required for the 314 environmental assessment and approval of a recycling system. 315

The total volume of recycled water supplied for reuse was about 4,876ML in 2008/09. The vast majority of this was generated in the Southern region as seen in Table 6.4. Facts on reuse are:  Clarence and Brighton councils in the Southern region had the highest volume of recycled water supplied (1,707ML and 986ML respectively)  Brighton, Southern Midlands and Central Highlands councils all recycled 100% of the effluent treated  Northern Midlands, West Tamar and Break O’Day councils in the Northern region recycled 316 around 30% of effluent discharged. Table 6.4: Recycled water volumes317 Region

Recycled water volume (ML)

Southern region North-western region

6.2.3

Recycled water (% of effluent recycled)

3,670

0.5

Northern region

1,138

Total

4,876

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government’s objectives, key legislation, policies and strategies, and key multijurisdictional bodies and government agencies relevant for wastewater are integrated with those for potable water. These are detailed in the Potable Water section, and only wastewater-unique elements are discussed below. Wastewater environmental regulations have changed considerably over the last decade. In the past, some of the WWTP’s discharge limits did not consider the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the volume of discharge and the quality of the discharge. Nowadays, discharge limits consider the:  Potential toxicity of effluent contaminants  Mass loads of nutrients and other pollutants, as well as the capacity of the receiving environment to accept these loads  Achievable performance standards, as reflected in acceptable modern technology (amt) 318 limits. Small to medium sized WWTPs (2kL/day to 500kL/day) must meet the objectives of the Emission Limit Guidelines published by the EPA. Level 1 WWTPs do not require EPA approval to operate but must still comply with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). Level 2 WWTPs plants that have a minimum throughput volume of 100 kilolitres per day are regulated by the EPA and are considered a Level 2 activity under EMPCA. Wastewater government coordination is provided by the Wastewater Management Unit within the Environment Division, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). It regulates Level 2 WWTPs, contributes to the development of environmental 319 guidelines and provides emergency wastewater management advice.

Water Tasmania does not have a specific stand-alone recycled water strategy. Instead, its policy is driven by sustainable development priorities embedded in the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). Two key components of the RMPS that refer to recycled water are the:  Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. The objectives of the environmental management and pollution control system established under EMPCA include prevention of ‘… environmental degradation and adverse risks to human and ecosystem health by promoting pollution prevention, clean production technology, re-use and recycling of 320 materials and waste minimisation programs …’.  State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997. This policy encourages the recycling and reuse of wastewater and, where appropriate, using this wastewater for irrigation and maximising its beneficial use while protecting the quality of surface waters. The policy also requires recycled water to be managed in accordance with the Tasmanian recycled water guidelines. Proposals for the use of recycled water are assessed by the inter-governmental Tasmanian Wastewater Reuse Coordinating Group (WRCG). The WRCG assesses reuse proposals and advises the EPA if the scheme is sustainable. When a reuse proposal is assessed as sustainable, it is the discharge point to the reuse scheme that is approved. ‘Supplier-user’ agreements must be in place and WWTP annual reporting requirements include any reuse schemes. Reuse schemes attached to Level 1 WWTP are approved and regulated by local government. While the EPA regulates the discharge points of wastewater treatment plants, it does not regulate the reuse schemes.

6.2.4

Sector trends Infrastructure renewal and expansion A Tasmanian Ministerial Taskforce found that about $1 billion of new water and sewerage infrastructure is required in Tasmania over the next decade to overcome a range of problems, including addressing the fact that approximately 50% of the WWTPs were not always in 321 compliance with their licence conditions. The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) had identified 58 wastewater treatment systems that require attention 322 to meet contemporary standards. Short-term wastewater projects are listed in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: WSC’s current major wastewater projects (Over $250,000 as of January 2010)323 Project name

Total Project Cost

Expected completion date

Description

Ben Lomond Water Deloraine Industrial Estate Sewer Reticulation

$274,930

Queechy Sewerage Pump Station Queechy Sewerage Rising Main Low Head Low Pressure Sewerage System

February 2010

New gravity sewer extension, pump station and rising main.

$3,590,562

July 2010

New high capacity pump station to replace existing aged facility

$1,215,438

April 2010

New pipeline to wastewater treatment plant to provide higher capacity

$266,966

March 2010

Provide reticulated sewerage to coastal settlement

$2,900,00

March 2010

First stage of backlog Sewerage Scheme to Lauderdale

December 2010

Recycling of nutrient-rich effluent to Coal River Valley primary producers, golf courses and nursery

March 2010

600m extension to Blackman’s Bay WWTP outfall

Southern Water Lauderdale Sewerage Scheme Stage 1

South East Tasmania Recycled Water Scheme

$10,620,000

Blackman’s Bay WWTP Outfall PIpeline

$1,816,660

Wastewater Project name

Total Project Cost

Kingston Wetlands Sewage Pump Station

Expected completion date

$ 288,060

Description

March 2010

New Sewage Pump Station

Cradle Mountain Water

6.3

Burnie Waste Water Treatment Plant

$600,000

August 2010

Complete installation of the marine outfall

Cradle Valley Waste Water Treatment Plant

$16,100,000

May 2010

New treatment plant constructed by Parks & Wildlife, to be transferred to CMW on 1 April 2010

Caroline St Sewage Pump Station Upgrade, Devonport

$2,645,000

November 2010

Installation of odour control, standby generator and bypass arrangements

Horse Head Creek Detention Storage, Devonport

$5,300,000

March 2010

Detention basin to control sewerage flows during storm events to minimise spillages

Sewer Main replacement, Sheffield

$500,000

June 2010

Main replacement to reduce infiltration caused by pipe deterioration

Performance Sewerage performance measures include:  Frequency of mains sewer blockages. These blockages are typically caused by moisture cycling of soils leading to cracked sewer joints which invite tree roots, and can lead to sewage spills, particularly during heavy rains.  Frequency of sewage spills. Sewer spills during dry weather are driven by soil dryness developing tree root growth, whereas wet weather spills occur when the sewerage system cannot contain the sewage flow due to inflow and infiltration into the sewer network. Spills from sewage pump stations can be driven by power supply failures as well as mechanical, electrical and telemetry failures.  Responsiveness to service failures, notably sewer spills and blockages  Treatment plant conformance. Table 6.6 illustrates the trend of sewer blockages. There is considerable variation within each region. Table 6.6: Sewer main blockages per 100km of sewer mains324 Region

Sewer main blockages per 100km of sewer mains

Southern

North-western

Northern

Average

51.4

The level of complaints by the public is an indicator of service quality. The complaints are typically about odour, blockages and spills. Table 6.7 shows the rate of sewage odour complaints. The area with the largest number of complaints was the Northern Midlands Council region with 2.1 complaints per 100 customers, followed by Southern Midlands (0.54 per 100 customers) and Circular Head (0.28 per 100 customers). In the Southern region, the Kingborough Council area 325 generated the largest number of complaints at 0.22.

Water Table 6.7: Sewage odour complaints per 100 customers326 Region

Sewage odour complaints per 100 customers

Southern

0.12

North-western

0.09

Northern

0.49

Sewer overflows occur when untreated sewage spills or discharges from the sewerage system. Overflows occur more frequently in wet weather when water infiltrates the sewer reticulation network and the total volume of wastewater exceeds design capacity. Reporting of overflows is inconsistent across the State and Figure 6.3 lists available figures. The worst performing were the:  Launceston Council area (5.5 overflows per 100km) 327  Devonport City Council area (4.7 overflows per 100km). The worst performing region was the Northern region (3.4 per 100km of sewer main), followed by 328 Southern region (2.1 per 100km) and the North-western region (1.9 per 100km). Figure 6.3: Sewer overflows per 100km of sewer main329

# Total number of sewer overflows reported to the environmental regulator used in calculation. ^ Glamorgan-Spring Bay Council reported seven sewer overflows, but unable to calculate rate per km of sewer main as data not supplied (NR) Not reported (NA) Not applicable

It is significant to note that:  Only six out of 78 regulated WWTPs achieved consistent compliance over 2008/09, and many of these were assessed against old permit conditions, which are less demanding than modern standards. The main causes of compliance failure are ageing or poorly maintained infrastructure, design problems or unsatisfactory system configuration.  About one third of the WWTPs were operating at or above their hydraulic capacity and therefore unable to cope with increased demand or peak loads caused by population growth, tourist peaks or growing trade waste.

Wastewater 

6.3.1

Many systems have difficulty coping with ingress by stormwater or groundwater, particularly following heavy rain. The primary causes of this are ageing and poorly maintained or 330 inadequately designed reticulation infrastructure.

Environmental sustainability A series of objectives and actions are being pursued to enhance the environmental sustainability of the wastewater infrastructure. These include:  Reducing the numbers of sewage outfalls and facilitating wastewater reuse and recycling  Ensuring that almost all WWTPs will have an associated reuse or recycling option within 10 years 331  Ensuring that all communities will have sewers that are designed to contain all discharges  Upgrading all WWTPs discharging to inland waterways or poorly mixed estuarine areas to provide tertiary treatment  Updating discharge and other conditions on all Level 2 WWTPs. The EPA is currently reviewing the performance and sensitivity of receiving environments for all Level 2 plants and will use this as a basis for negotiation with the RWCs in their development of a wastewater management strategy to address upgrading requirements for their plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting for changing climate is not a priority for the WSCs due to their other priorities. However, the issues will be addressed in the future.

6.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving wastewater infrastructure include:  Managing the decentralised WWTPs to achieve their compliance standard. There are some 58 wastewater treatment systems that do not meet contemporary standards. These need to be addressed to improve environmental and health outcomes. Non-compliance is mostly in the non-urban areas and smaller treatment plants.  Increasing the level of asset knowledge, focusing on improving outcomes and funding. See Future challenges in the Potable Water section for details.  Utilising wastewater for productive purposes. Wastewater can be a valuable resource in certain circumstances. However, its use depends on customer demand and public attitudes.  Addressing climate change risk for sewerage infrastructure. Climate change impacts for sewerage infrastructure occur as a result of rising sea levels combined with storm tides, ongoing drought, intense rains and rising average temperatures. Rising sea levels result in seawater ingress into sewerage networks increasing the salt load in sewage, total flow increases, and concrete corrosion. Ongoing drought reduces the volume of flow causing pipe blockages and treatment challenges. Intense rains cause capacity problems, and rising temperatures can increase odour complaints. The risk of climate change needs to be assessed for Tasmania’s infrastructure.  Reducing the frequency and impact of sewerage system blockages and overflows due to stormwater infiltration. Stormwater ingress is a major problem for some sewerage systems, and can lead to increased cost for treatment and number of sewer overflows. Addressing the problems will be difficult due to the high mitigation cost. More than half of the ingress results from private property, that is, from the homeowner’s private sewer installation. An additional complication is that prior to the introduction of the Local Government Act in the 1960s, developers were not obliged to provide a stormwater connection to new lots. The consequence of this is that significant backlog stormwater infrastructure is required to be constructed by local government in some older areas to remove illegal connections of stormwater to the sewer network.

Water

6.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Wastewater

Tasmania 2010 C

Tasmania 2005 C- Metropolitan D Non-metropolitan

National 2005

National 2001

C+

C-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s wastewater infrastructure has been rated C. This rating recognises that improvements have been made in recent years to infrastructure in problem areas and there have been significant increases in the volumes of recycled water used. The 2009 reforms of the water and sewerage sector will significantly improve sewerage services providing that the committed funding materialises. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  The review by the EPA of all treatment level requirements for each Level 2 WWTP  Formation of the WSCs, which provides uniformity in planning, constructions and ongoing management  Increase in capital works to improve and increase sewerage infrastructure  Increase in the use of recycled water. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Poor asset quality of sewerage infrastructure  The short time frame given for restructuring of the water and sewerage sector  The shortage of human resources in the WSCs to implement their capital works and operations.

Stormwater

7.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Stormwater

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C-

This rating recognises that significant localised stormwater initiatives have been implemented and the application of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is becoming widespread. However, the State-wide stormwater strategy is yet to be approved and funding for stormwater projects secured. Since the last Report Card, the major stormwater sector developments have been:  Revision of the Draft State Stormwater Strategy  Development of guidelines to assist local government, developers and the construction industry to fulfil their stormwater responsibilities. There have been a number of completed and in-progress projects with the major ones being:  Improving stormwater quality and reducing quantity flowing into the Derwent Estuary  Significant increase State-wide in the installation of gross pollutant traps by local governments. Challenges to improving stormwater infrastructure include:  Building comprehensive asset knowledge  Implementation of the State Stormwater Strategy  Obtaining sufficient funding to maintain and improve asset quality  Maintaining appropriate stormwater expertise within local governments given the recent transfer of water expertise from local governments to the regional water and sewage corporations  Accelerating the implementation of WSUD as a way of increasing the quality and use of stormwater.

7.2

Infrastructure overview

7.2.1

System description Stormwater is rainfall that runs off roofs, roads and other surfaces. The volume of urban stormwater is significant. Tasmania’s stormwater infrastructure comprises:  Catch drains, kerb and gutters, stormwater pits, pipes, culverts and headwalls, open channels, overland flow routes and detention facilities  Natural creeks, waterways and rivulets  Stormwater water quality management and re-use infrastructure. This infrastructure conveys stormwater runoff principally into receiving rivers, lakes and the ocean. Pollutants originating from many different sources affect stormwater quality including oil from roads, litter, faecal matter from dogs and humans, and sediment from building sites. In urban areas, the increasing proportion of impervious areas has reduced the amount of rainfall that either infiltrates the ground or is retained by vegetation. Consequently, increased quantities of stormwater runoff enter the drainage system and the receiving waterways. Most stormwater

Water drainage systems have been constructed to remove stormwater from urban areas as quickly as possible in order to minimise the risk of flooding and prevent water from becoming stagnant. The resulting large volume and high speed of stormwater entering waterways may cause scouring (instream erosion) of waterways. In areas with more natural environments or superior engineered stormwater systems, the runoff is released over a longer period of time and has lower peak discharges, thus maintaining healthier water environments. Notable features of several key Tasmanian stormwater systems are:  The stormwater system that flows into the Derwent Estuary is a large distributed network where water is collected from 57 urban and suburban catchments by way of 13 major rivulets and over 332 270 large outfall pipes. This means that decentralised stormwater improvement solutions are required, rather than a centralised solution focusing on water treatment at outfalls. In addition, the steep gradients of much of the area’s stormwater system means that flow rates are high, reducing the opportunity for natural sedimentation systems.  Rapid urban development in areas such as Glenorchy is resulting in high runoff rates and volume. This can cause problems with flooding and erosion of the receiving waterways, and flooding during high rainfall events.  There are a large number of illegal connections between the stormwater and sewerage system in certain areas of Tasmania. For instance, up to one in four households in the Hobart City 333 Council area has some form of illegal connection where stormwater is directed to sewers. Such connections result in more frequent sewage overflows during heavy rain, and the entry of faecal matter into the receiving waters. In the Derwent region, urban runoff delivers approximately 90% of the total faecal coliform load, although the human component of this load 334 has not been quantified.  In Launceston and Queenstown, the stormwater and sewerage system are combined. Consequently, stormwater is treated as sewage, increasing the cost of wastewater treatment. In addition, heavy rain that exceeds the combined sewage and stormwater system capacity results in sewage-contaminated water flooding onto the streets. A key purpose of stormwater assets is to provide an effective way to deal with runoff so that it does not cause flooding. The capacity of drainage systems, and hence their flooding risk, varies across Tasmania and generally reflects the age of the infrastructure. In Tasmania, most major stormwater systems are designed to discharge Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) events up to one in 100 years. Local governments in Tasmania are primarily responsible for the management of drainage systems, including rivulets and the stormwater system. Many local governments have an asset management plan for stormwater that identifies the assets, areas for improvements and project implementation plans. The existence and quality of these plans vary with local governments. For instance, Glenorchy City Council is aiming to ‘develop and refine a knowledge base on the 335 condition, capability and capacity of Council’s stormwater services’ during the 2009/2014 period 336 while Latrobe Council aims to ‘finalise asset management plan for stormwater’. Some local governments have developed or are developing a stormwater strategy, such as the Devonport City 337 338 Council, which aims to have it complete by June 2010, and the Burnie City Council. The Hobart City Council produced asset management plans in 2007 for all its infrastructure classes, including stormwater and rivulets. Key stormwater responsibilities of local governments are:  Maintaining information on stormwater asset condition and cost  Ensuring that the construction of stormwater infrastructure within new subdivisions by developers is in accordance with local government standards  Installing and maintaining gross pollutant traps  Clearing all drains 86

Stormwater  

Water quality investigations Encouraging WSUD in significant subdivisional applications.

There is no consolidated information on the length and quality of stormwater assets in Tasmania, although a few local governments publish information on their assets. For example, Kingborough 339 Council identifies that it has 200km of maintained stormwater systems and Circular Head 340 Council reports that it has 27.06km of drains. Local governments do, however, report on the value, maintenance and capital expenditure on stormwater assets. The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) is also responsible for stormwater management due to the significant drainage infrastructure associated with its road corridors including pavement drainage, cross-drainage structures, and water quality devices. DIER and local governments exercise their responsibilities by encouraging the inclusion of Water Sensitive Urban Design elements in designs, and requiring soil and water management plans for construction and maintenance work. An example of stormwater management/WSUD being implemented in one of DIER’s projects is the Brighton Bypass that will incorporate strategies and features such as:  Considering the typical rural environment, generally dry climate and seasonal rainfall patterns and focusing on high risk areas such as junctions and receiving waterways  Consideration of maintenance and life-cycle costs as well as effectiveness of available WSUD elements to ensure that available funds can produce the most benefit  Containment of external flows with the use of cut-off drains and cross drainage to minimise mixing with road runoff  Vegetation batters and construction of energy dissipating structures to reduce erosion  Construction of oil containment basins at an interchange in a sensitive area to capture oil in the event of a spill  Construction of dedicated bioretention basins that also trap suspended solids in sensitive areas  Construction of drainage bunds in preference to excavated drains in areas with thin soils, to retain existing vegetation and reduce potential for erosion  Construction of vegetated swales in areas with suitable materials and topography, and the use of innovative techniques to retain soil and vegetation in drains in steep or rocky areas  Construction of a detention structure to reduce flow rates and allow existing heritage downstream drainage infrastructure to be retained  Protection of threatened flora species within bioretention and detention structures  Installation of Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs).

7.2.2

Policy and governance Over the last decade, stormwater management in Tasmania has evolved from a drainage to a water management perspective. That is, the focus has shifted from transporting stormwater away as quickly as possible, to managing stormwater quality and quantity in such a way that it protects the environment and receiving waters in particular. This has been achieved by managing water quality and quantity in its catchment (rather than at outfalls) through the installation of litter traps, community awareness programs and WSUD. Due to Tasmania’s higher rainfall compared to the mainland States, Tasmania’s focus on stormwater is to improve the receiving water quality and reduce flooding risks, rather than harvest it as a substitute for potable water. The key policy documents relating to stormwater are:  The State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997). The Policy aims to protect or enhance the water quality in surface and groundwater while allowing for sustainable development. It contains provision for diffuse pollution from erosion and stormwater runoff from land disturbance (e.g. roadworks), drainage, agricultural runoff and forestry operations. It 87

Water requires a code of practice to be developed for each of these activities to reduce the impact on 341 waterways. It also states that local governments need to prepare and implement a Stormwater Management Plan where urban runoff threatens the values, uses and water quality 342 of downstream waterways.  Draft State Stormwater Strategy (2009). The Strategy defines a consistent State-wide approach to the management of stormwater for planning and assessing developments at State and local government level.343 It provides a means to fulfil the stormwater provisions contained in the State Policy on Water Quality Management.344 The Stormwater Strategy is currently in draft stage. Its first draft was released in 2003 345 and has remained in draft form since. A revised draft was released in 2009. When the Strategy is approved, it is will be implemented via local planning schemes and empowered through the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.346 The Strategy is based on a management hierarchy of stormwater priorities with the highest being retaining the water and restoring valuable ecosystems, followed by source control and lastly in-system management measures.347 The Strategy sets planning and design objectives for both the construction phase and the operational life of a development, and these would apply to any development that creates 500m2 or greater of additional impervious surface (including roads, car parking, subdivisions, multi-lot stratum, commercial and industrial developments).348 As a condition for obtaining planning and building permits, the submission of Soil and Water Management Plans (SWMP) would be required. The SWMPs are specific site plans or drawings that list the measures to be undertaken to control the anticipated erosion, and for preventing 349 sediment on building and construction sites. To assist local government, developers and the construction industry in meeting their stormwater management obligations, the following guidelines have been developed:  Model Urban Stormwater Management Plan (2004). The Plan’s goal is for ‘best management practices to manage stormwater runoff, with the aim of protecting the water quality, habitat, aesthetics and community uses of the rivulet and bay’. The plan focuses on three major areas of stormwater management:  Retro-fitting existing urban areas to improve stormwater quality via wetlands, rainwater tanks, education, signage and revegetation  Local government planning and development controls to minimise the impacts of future development on stormwater quality and quantity 350  Community and council stormwater awareness programs.  Soil and Water Management for Building and Construction Sites (2008). This guideline evolved from the 2006 project entitled Sediment and Erosion Control in the Derwent Metropolitan Region and provides guidelines on sediment and erosion control measures during 351 construction.  Water Sensitive Urban Design: Engineering Procedures for Stormwater Management in Southern Tasmania (2005). This manual sets out a framework to assist in the design of stormwater treatment systems applicable to urban landscapes in southern Tasmania. It was based on Melbourne Water’s WSUD Engineering Procedures: Stormwater (2004).352 Key stormwater legislation includes:  Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994  Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993  Local Government Act 1993. There are no licensing arrangements for stormwater harvesting. Proponents of schemes to extract water from the stormwater system contact the owner of that system, which will generally be the local government.

Stormwater 7.2.3

Sector trends Improving stormwater treatment Trends in stormwater treatment include: ď&#x201A;ť Increasing uptake of stormwater litter traps. Litter traps are baskets, trays, bags or screens placed just below the entrance of the stormwater pit. Over 500 stormwater litter traps have been installed by the Hobart City Council alone and Launceston City Council has also installed a number. ď&#x201A;ť Creation of stormwater treatment train. A stormwater treatment train has sequential components that contribute to the treatment of stormwater before it leaves the site. Trains have been installed in Brighton and Kingborough, with gross pollutant traps installed above stormwater ponds and wetlands. Another example is at the Cambridge Homemaker Centre where litter traps were installed to pre-treat the runoff prior to discharge into a constructed wetland. ď&#x201A;ť Increasing use of media filtration systems. Similar to sand filters, media filtration systems are an appropriate treatment device for car parks, commercial and industrial developments. They have been installed by the Hobart City Council in their multi-storey car parks and at Hungry Jacks in Davey Street Hobart. Growth in Water Sensitive Urban Design WSUD is being increasingly applied in Tasmania as a way of minimising the impacts of urbanisation on waterways and estuaries. WSUD involves techniques to treat, store, and infiltrate stormwater runoff onsite rather than simply facilitating rapid discharge of stormwater to the environment. A reflection of the penetration of WSUD across Tasmania is the degree to which it is mentioned in local government documents. Out of 26 local government annual reports analysed in 2009, only Hobart, Kingborough, Southern Midlands and East Coast referred to WSUD. The Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) has provided significant impetus for the adoption of WSUD across Tasmania. It has developed the Model Urban Stormwater Management Plan and the Water Sensitive Urban Design: Engineering Procedures for Stormwater Management in Southern Tasmania. During the last five years, over 20 WSUD projects as shown in Figure 7.1 these have been installed by councils and industry within the Derwent estuary region. The Derwent Estuary Program has been important in demonstrating the relationship between increasing urbanisation and decreasing stormwater quality. From July 2002 to June 2005, the Derwent Estuary Program coordinated a regional rivulet and stormwater monitoring program in collaboration with six councils and three Waterwatch groups. Water samples were collected each month at 12 rivulets (upper and lower catchment sites) and three stormwater dams, and analysed k for total suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals and faecal bacteria. The results of the threeyear monitoring program demonstrated a clear relationship of decreasing stormwater quality with increasing catchment urbanisation. This assessment would apply to urban stormwater elsewhere in Tasmania. Modelled loading rates of pollutants delivered to the Derwent estuary via the stormwater system each year are given in Table 7.1. These are calculated for all the subcatchments draining directly in the Derwent estuary and were derived from the 2003 urban rivulet monitoring data and catchment modelling using the Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization (MUSIC version 3) software. These modelled loads are very high; for example, 852 tonnes of litter is discharged to the Derwent via the stormwater system each year.

A total of 34 sites were monitored. To a large degree, this monitoring design reflects base-flow water quality, rather than water quality associated with specific storm events which would typically have much higher levels of some contaminants, particularly TSS and faecal bacteria.

Water Figure 7.1: Major WSUD projects in the Derwent estuary region installed between 2005/2008353

Table 7.1: Modelled Stormwater Pollutant loads (tonnes/year) to the Derwent Estuary Pollutant Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Total Suspended Sediments Litter

Tonnes/Year 184 30 7,996 852

Stormwater

7.3

Performance Performance measures for stormwater systems relate to their:  Ability to convey major storm events and eliminate/minimise flooding and consequential damage to private property or critical infrastructure  Ability to maintain the long-term sustainability of natural systems from a water quality perspective, by minimising the discharge of pollutants and generally improving the quality of stormwater discharge. Assessing the performance of the stormwater system is difficult for two reasons. Firstly, it cannot be evaluated in isolation as it is affected by land use and building development policies that control building in flood prone areas and the uptake of water-sensitive urban design. Secondly, there is no consolidated data on stormwater assets and performance, such as the quality of stormwater runoff entering our natural waterways. While many local governments have some data on their stormwater systems as part of their asset management plans, this data is neither comprehensive nor comparable between local governments. Also, some asset owners do not have a good understanding of their asset quality. One quantitative indicator for stormwater is local government residents’ satisfaction. As seen in Figure 7.2, residents give stormwater and flood control an importance score of 88. This compares with an importance score of 92 for water supply and sewerage. In terms of satisfaction, residents give stormwater a satisfaction score of 76, compared to 78 for water supply and 82 for sewerage 354 removal and treatment. The figures indicate that there has not been a significant change in stormwater satisfaction over the last few years, and the level of stormwater satisfaction is lower than for water supply and sewerage. Part of the reason for dissatisfaction is related to the existence of soaks on private land and the visibility of runoff due to topography. Figure 7.2: Importance and satisfaction with stormwater provision by local government355 100 90 80 70 60 Importance 50

Satisfaction 2002

Satisfaction 2006 Satisfaction 2009

30 20 10 0 Standard of Water Supply

Sewerage Removal and Treatment

Stormwater and Flood Control

The following observations can also be made about stormwater infrastructure:  The quality of stormwater systems around the Derwent Estuary have improved considerably over the last decade and reduced the frequency of flooding, sediment loads and faecal contamination.  In Launceston, separating the combined sewerage and stormwater system would be prohibitively expensive. 91

Water 

7.3.1

In other towns and cities, much of the State’s stormwater systems are either nearing or are at capacity during periods of high rainfall, particularly in urban areas with high development. This is illustrated in the Glenorchy area where high development rates have led to the area experiencing flooding issues after storm events.

Environmental sustainability Effective stormwater management can contribute to environmental sustainability by improving water quality and reducing its runoff volume. The Draft State Stormwater Strategy sets the following stormwater management targets:  80% reduction in the average annual load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) based on typical urban stormwater TSS concentrations  45% reduction in the average annual load of Total Phosphorus (TP) based on typical urban stormwater TP concentrations  45% reduction in the average annual load of Total Nitrogen (TN) based on typical urban 356 stormwater TN concentrations. Climate change science indicates that in Tasmania, annual rainfall will decrease further in the north 357 east and increase in the west, with more of the rainfall occurring in winter and spring. This change may result in more flooding in some areas as the ability of stormwater infrastructure is exceeded.

7.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving stormwater infrastructure include:  Building comprehensive asset knowledge. Comprehensive information on stormwater assets does not exist across Tasmania. Building this asset knowledge as required by the State Stormwater Strategy will take time. Until this exists, it will be difficult for local governments and the Tasmanian Government to identify and justify significant investments in upgrading priority areas.  Implementation of the State Stormwater Strategy. Implementing the procedures, enforcement regime, etc. as defined by the strategy may take a number of years.  Obtaining sufficient funding to maintain and improve asset quality. The funding of stormwater infrastructure comes mostly from local government, and due to their financial constraints, significant improvement will not be possible without additional funding. Australian Government funding has played a critical role in funding stormwater in Tasmania. Between 2005 and 2008, 40 Community Water Grants worth $1.8 million were received by councils, community groups, businesses and schools within the Derwent Region for stormwater treatment and harvesting projects. Local governments need to look at funding using outside grants to effectively manage stormwater in the future.  Maintaining appropriate stormwater expertise within local governments given the recent transfer of water expertise from local governments to the regional water and sewerage corporations. Stormwater improvements at the local government level may stall as a result of the transfer of water expertise from them to the three Water and Sewerage Corporations in 2009. The transfer may have a negative impact on the ability of local governments to retain and attract skilled staff to manage their activity without the broader hydraulics and engineering 358 functions associated with water and sewerage activities.  Accelerating the implementation of WSUD as a way of increasing the quality and use of stormwater. Stormwater does not receive the attention that other elements of the water management cycle do. There is little appreciation of the opportunity that integrating stormwater into water management cycle can have for balancing the competing demands for water. Some inroads have been made in WSUD in Tasmania with the State’s first WSUD manual developed in 2005 and during the past five years over twenty major WSUD systems have been installed by

Stormwater councils and industry within the Derwent estuary region. However, in a State-wide context only a small number of stormwater and WSUD-based projects exist.

7.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Stormwater

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

C-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s stormwater infrastructure has been rated C-. This rating recognises that significant localised stormwater initiatives have been implemented and the application of WSUD is becoming widespread. However, the State-wide stormwater strategy is yet to be approved and funding for stormwater projects secured. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Widespread development of stormwater quality management plans and drainage strategies by local governments  Increased uptake of WSUD  Improvements in the spatial mapping of flooding, including consideration of climate change issues  Implementation of flood protection works  Implementation of at-source litter traps, distributed treatment trains and cutting-edge stormwater treatment systems such as media filtration systems  Training using stormwater design software packages throughout the State. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Lack of a State-wide urban stormwater strategy  Limited capacity for local governments to fund stormwater infrastructure renewals and replacement  Failure to incorporate changes in rainfall due to climate change in the design of stormwater systems.

Water

Irrigation

8.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Irrigation

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

C-

D-

This rating recognises that there has been a significant expansion in irrigation infrastructure and improved irrigation practice. However, there are concerns about the sustainability of the expanded irrigation systems. Since 2005, the major irrigation sector developments have been:  A decision by the Tasmanian Government to increase irrigation by 50%, requiring an additional 250,000ML/year of irrigation water  Creation of the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board to progress a suite of irrigation schemes  Establishment of programs to encourage on-farm irrigation efficiency  A review of the dam approval processes to ensure that developments meet best practices in planning and development assessments, as well as contemporary dam safety practices  Improved understanding of the sustainable water yield figures up to 2030 for Tasmania’s northern and eastern regions. There have also been a number of completed and in-progress projects with the major ones being:  The completion of the Meander Dam, which has created Tasmania’s largest irrigation scheme with 24GL/year of irrigation water  Development of 11 other major irrigation projects. Challenges to improving irrigation infrastructure include:  Preventing water over-extraction and irrigation causing land degradation  Ensuring that drought and climate change impacts on water resources can be catered for within the water allocation and licensing arrangements  Delivery of the large capital works programs effectively and efficiently.

8.2

Infrastructure overview

8.2.1

System description Tasmania’s irrigation infrastructure comprises:  Water storages and weirs  Constructed open channels (110km of lined and unlined channels) 359  Pipelines (135km of gravity and pressurised pipes). Together, these systems store, distribute and drain irrigation water. To allow comparisons between Report Cards in other jurisdictions, this section does not address ground water extraction l infrastructure, or irrigation sourced from unregulated streams through private infrastructure.

Unlike much of mainland Australia, most infrastructure used for the provision of irrigation water in Tasmania is owned by individual landowners. Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 67.

Water Less than 10% of Tasmania’s irrigation water is sourced from publicly-owned infrastructure through 360 formal irrigation schemes. The rest is sourced from unregulated streams or on-farm storages utilising privately funded infrastructure. Table 8.1 lists irrigation water entitlements in Tasmania. Table 8.1: Irrigation water entitlements in Tasmania361 Region

Total number of irrigation permits

Arthur – Pieman

506

Derwent – South East

726

Huon – Gordon

357

Inglis – Cam

1091

Meander Mersey – Forth

439 Not available

Pipers – Ringarooma South Esk

1084 483

The last five years has seen the amount of water licensed for irrigation in the State increased from around 250,000ML to over 380,000ML, an increase of over 50%. There has been a doubling of the 362 volume of water licensed for irrigation between 2003 and 2009. Figure 8.1 shows the location of Tasmania’s key irrigation districts. Figure 8.1: Key Tasmanian irrigation districts363

Irrigation Details of the major irrigation schemes in Tasmania are listed in Table 8.2. Table 8.2: Major irrigation schemes in Tasmania364 Scheme

Cressy Longford Irrigation Scheme

Number of customers

Volume delivered through supply network (GL)

Network supply area (hectares)

Current status

132

7.3

14,667

One of the oldest farming districts in Tasmania. The scheme is managed by Cressy-Longford Irrigation Scheme Ltd, a cooperative established by irrigators on the scheme.365 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes (TIS) owns the scheme infrastructure.366

6,231

Established in 1972, water is drawn from the Cascade Dam and distributed via a 35km pipeline. The scheme is managed by Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme Ltd, a co-operative established by irrigators on the scheme.367 TIS owns the scheme infrastructure.368

South East Irrigation Scheme

164

2.8

15,077

The scheme supplies irrigation water to farmers along the Coal River from Craigbourne Dam to Richmond and via pipeline supply through to Cambridge.369

River Clyde Irrigation Scheme

51,750

Responsibility for this scheme rests with the Shannon-Clyde Water Company established by irrigators in October 2008. TIS does not have any involvement in this scheme.370

Meander Irrigation District

150 (approx)

8,200

Tooms Lake/Mac quarie River Irrigation District

1.4

39,300

The Elizabeth Macquarie Trust manages this scheme.m

Lake Leake/ Macquarie River Irrigation District

45,300

The Elizabeth Macquarie Trust manages this scheme.

Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme

The inaugural Meander Valley Irrigation season opened in December 2007 following the completion of the Meander Dam in November 2007. The TIS has commenced construction of four pipelines (Quamby Brook, Caveside-Dairy Plains, Rubicon and Hagley irrigation pipelines) that will supply water to the farming districts adjoining the Scheme. The pipelines will deliver in excess of 17,000ML of Meander Dam water to these four catchments adjacent to the Meander River.371

Table 8.3 identifies the water usage and crops irrigated within the South-East and Meander Valley Irrigation Schemes.

Between July 2008 and June 2009, Tooms Lake/Elizabeth District had 17 irrigation right holders of which six used the water, with a total water allocation is 9078ML, but used only 1433.2ML. Information provided by Elizabeth Macquarie Irrigation Trust.

Water Table 8.3: Water usage and crops irrigated within the South-East and Meander Valley Irrigation Schemes during the 2008/2009 irrigation season372 South-East Crop

Meander Valley HA

Apricots

365

166

Barley

104

164

Cherries Clover Dam Filling Golf Course

198

Herbs

305

Lettuce

296

115

Lucerne

557

189

Oats Olives Orchards

Pasture

314

161

4,037

3,200

Peas

109

107

658

596

Poppies

889

381

Potatoes

596

305

Rape

Seed

584

306

Vegetables

202

156

Vineyard

370

176

Walnuts

Wheat

3,077

1,501

6,968

4,945

Total

Figure 8.2 shows the total water allocation and water delivered to irrigators during the year compared to the rolling 5-10 year average water delivery. Figure 8.2: Comparison of water allocation, delivery and 5-10 year averages for the South-East and Meander Valley Irrigation Schemes373 16000 14000

Allocation

Delivered

12000

5yr average

10yr average

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Meander Valley Irrigation Scheme 2008-09

South-East Irrigation Scheme 2008-09

Irrigation Scheme & Season Dates

Irrigation Figure 8.3 shows water delivery volumes for the last 10 years. Figure 8.3: Water delivery volumes for the last 10 years for South-East and Meander Valley Irrigation Schemes374 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000

South-East Meander Valley

3000 2000 1000 0 99/00

8.2.2

00/01

01/02

02/03

03/04

04/05

05/06

06/07

07/08

08/09

Policy and governance A key Tasmanian Government objective is to improve agricultural production, particularly through increased irrigation. In Tasmania, some 30% of employment is in the agricultural sector, and more than half the value of all Tasmanian agricultural production comes from irrigated land, which makes 375 up just 4% of the total land farmed. Tasmania is one of the very few Australian States where an expansion of irrigation is possible without reducing environmental flows materially, or where climate change will significantly reduce rainfall and runoff volumes. A 2005 report identified that the State’s target for irrigated agriculture 376 growth would require an additional 250GL of annual irrigation water supply by 2015. This 377 involves increasing irrigation water availability by 40% on 2008 levels. The policy framework for irrigation, based on sustainable water use and development, was established in the 2001 Water Development Plan for Tasmania. The Plan identified a number of strategic initiatives and actions relevant to irrigation including:  Providing State funding to progress key irrigation developments  Encouraging strategic water development on a catchment or regional basis rather than piecemeal development  Improving processes for assessing applications for water allocation and dam construction in a timely, consistent and clear manner  Facilitating greater reuse of wastewater for irrigation  Fostering a water trading market by removing barriers to trade 378  Improving the efficiency of water use in irrigation. More recently, the 2008 Drought Proofing Tasmania updated the list of strategic irrigation 379 developments being pursued. The initial irrigation phases of the Water Development Plan followed two objectives – small-scale improvement of on-farm development principally funded by the farmers, and scoping and feasibility assessment of large-scale irrigation projects funded by the Tasmanian Government. The reason for the latter was that the Tasmanian Government had recognised that the greatest impediment to 99

Water private investment in water development was the provision of risk capital necessary to progress larger-scale proposals through the statutory approval stages. This resulted in the Water Development Plan providing risk capital for the scoping and feasibility assessment of irrigation projects. Examples of projects that have been supported through to investment are the Meander, 380 Wesley Vale and Headquarters Road irrigation developments. Initiatives to advance local irrigation improvements include:  The SMART Farming program. This program was announced in the 2006/07 Budget and provided $7.48 million over the following four years to strengthen the security of water entitlements, increase the availability of surface water streamflow information, and progress demand-driven water development opportunities. A component of this initiative is the SMART Farming Farm Water Development Plan Program (FWDPP) which subsidises the cost of preparing water plans identifying opportunities to increase the effective use of water supplies 381 and accessing additional irrigation water.  The Farm Water Development Loan Scheme. In May 2009, the Tasmanian Government announced the new Farm Water Development Loan Scheme, which enables farmers to obtain low cost loans of between $100,000 and $750,000 to support the construction of on-farm storage and the purchase and establishment of irrigation infrastructure. The loans will come under the reactivated Farm Water Development Act 1985. The Farm Water Development Loan 382 n Scheme is administered by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. Initiatives to advance large-scale projects include the establishment of the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board. The Board is advancing some $400 million in projects. Another key activity in the Tasmanian approach to irrigation is to meet the objective of the National o Water Initiative. Progress to achieve it includes:  Increasing the availability of, and public access to, water information to underpin investment decisions, including broader coverage of surface water streamflow information  Obtaining essential information on water availability from hydrological modelling of water catchments  Strengthening the security of water access entitlements through legislative amendments  Improving the water entitlements register  Extending the general water licence tenure period to 40 years  Identifying opportunities for sustainable access to new water entitlements through accelerated water management planning  Changing groundwater management and regulation to protect and encourage investment in 383 groundwater development. The governance framework for rural water pricing in Tasmania is illustrated in Figure 8.4.

The National Water Commission (2009) stated that such subsidies could also distort efficient levels of investment in irrigation assets. The National Water Commission, 2009, Australian water reform 2009: Second biennial assessment of progress in implementation of the National Water Initiative, p. 178. o The National Water Initiative (NWI) is Australia’s blueprint for water reform signed by all Australian governments. Its overall objective is to achieve a nationally-compatible market, regulatory and planning based system of managing surface and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes. http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/117-national-waterinitiative.asp.

100

Irrigation Figure 8.4: Tasmania’s water governance arrangements relevant for irrigation384

Water Management Act 1999

Irrigation Clauses Act 1973

Water Management Regulations 1999

Water Entities

Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW)

Irrigation Water District By-laws

Irrigation water charges

Water Licence fees

Irrigation water customers (water licence or irrigation right holders)

Key Acts and guidance are:  Water Management Act 1999. The Act provides the framework for the management and allocation of water in Tasmania, and its objectives include the promotion of sustainable use and the facilitation of economic development of water resources, and the maintenance of ecological 385 processes and genetic diversity for aquatic ecosystems. It provides for the establishment of irrigation districts and the administration of such districts by a responsible water entity (e.g. a government business enterprise, council, company, co-operative, trust).  Irrigation Clauses Act 1973. This Act provides the statutory basis for the construction, operation and funding of irrigation schemes by the responsible water entity. It also provides for the supply of water for irrigation under the system of irrigation rights, or general availability, and the trading of irrigation rights. The Act enables responsible water entities to set their fees and charges for 386 supply of irrigation rights through their by-laws. Under this Act, a responsible water entity holding a licence under Part 6 of the Water Management Act 1999 may allocate irrigation rights within an irrigation district.  Guiding Principles for Water Trading in Tasmania. This document clarifies the trading of water 387 access entitlements as established under the Water Management Act. Trading zones and exchange rates for trade within and between the zones are addressed in the principles. The guiding principles detail issues to be considered in the approval of licence and water allocation 388 transfers.  Rivers and Water Supply Commission Act 1999. This Act specifies the functions of the RWSC. Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are as follows.  National Water Commission. The Commission is the leading Australian Government agency for driving national water reform under the National Water Initiative, Australia’s blueprint for how water will be managed in the future.  Rivers and Water Supply Commission (RWSC) (Tasmanian Government). The RWSC functions principally as a governance-overseeing body for its two subsidiaries, Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd and Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board Pty Ltd.  Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd (TIS). The TIS is responsible for managing and operating the State-owned irrigation schemes, and the development of small irrigation 389 schemes. TIS assumed ownership and responsibility for all of the RWSC’s staff, schemes, assets, rights and liabilities in January 2009 and administers the following irrigation schemes:  South East Irrigation Scheme  Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme  Meander Valley Irrigation Scheme and any expansion to this scheme arising from the construction of pipeline extensions.390

101

Water 

Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board Pty Ltd (TIDB). The TIDB is responsible for progressing regionally-significant irrigation schemes from feasibility assessment through to the 391 construction and operational stages via public-private partnerships.

Water licences are required to take water from a river or stream, and store it in a farm dam for commercial purposes. Licences, and the attached water allocations, are the personal property of 392 the registered holders and are fully transferable on a permanent or temporary basis. Water Access Entitlements are issued and managed by the DPIPWE. Water licences, introduced in 2000, are issued for a period of 40 years with provision made for reassessment of licence conditions 393 every five years. A 2005 review resulted in their cost increase so that they adequately reflect the cost of their management over five years. The water allocation available in any year is the volumetric limit specified in the licence and is restricted depending upon conditions. Allocations are not issued as a share of a consumptive pool, as most of the extraction points are from unregulated rivers and the available resources vary 394 considerably. Allocation or licence volumes are classified according to the following hierarchy from highest to lowest.  Surety 1: Domestic purposes, consumption by livestock, firefighting, town water supplies  Surety 2: Needs of ecosystems  Surety 3: Licensees granted a licence by way of replacement of ‘old’ prescriptive rights granted under previous Acts  Surety 4: Rights of special licensees, notably electricity generation  Surety 5: Direct extraction for irrigation and other commercial purposes and for winter storage in dams; water is expected to be available at about 80% reliability, that is, eight years in ten  Surety 6: Direct extraction for use in irrigation and other commercial purposes and for winter storage in dams; water is expected to be available at less than 80% reliability  Surety 7 and 8: Low level of reliability for purposes including water provided under catchment or site-specific limitations and conditions, such as water taken in flood peaks in Hydro Water 395 Districts to fill dam storages. Planning approval is required to establish irrigation infrastructure and the relevant Acts for each infrastructure are:  Dam works – Water Management Act  Large dams and pipelines – Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act  Pipelines and channels – Land Use Planning and Approvals Act, and Major Infrastructure 396 Development Approvals Act.

8.2.3

Sector trends Growth of irrigation infrastructure A significant expansion of irrigation infrastructure is currently occurring with the $35 million Meander Dam being the most recent major project completed. The Tasmanian Government has 397 identified a further 12 larger-scale irrigation developments worth approximately $400 million. These are listed in Table 8.4. Six of these projects have received a total of $140 million in Australian Government funding. The Tasmanian Government has committed a further $80 million 398 to progress all these projects.

102

Irrigation Table 8.4: Key water infrastructure projects399 Project name

Description

Water volume (ML per annum)

Cost (millions)

Irrigable area (ha)

Midlands Water Scheme (Poatina Tailrace to Oatlands Pipeline)

Pipeline to deliver irrigation water from the Poatina Power Station outflows and South Esk River to farmland as far south as Oatlands and Mount Seymour

50,000

104

73,444

Upper Macquarie Dam (Midlands Water Scheme)

Proposed dam in the Upper Macquarie Catchment- Upper Junction Hill/Maloney Hill

30,000

20,000

Upper South Esk Dam (Midlands Water Scheme)

Identify large-scale water storages in the Upper South Esk Catchment

20,000

Several potential dams, sites uncosted (2150)400

20,000

Shannon-OuseClyde Project

Proposed dams to store and release water into the Clyde and Ouse Catchments

21,000

53 (including Hydro Tasmania infrastructure)

11,000

Forth River Irrigation Schemes

Pipelines and waterways from Hydro Tasmania storages on MerseyForth system

18,000

65.2

22,650

Meadstone Dam

Proposed dam on St Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s River

30,000

8,000

North East Dams (North East Irrigation Development)

Investigate potential water storages to provide water to Bridport, Waterhouse and Gladstone for dairy conversions

up to 70,000

40,000 45,000

Meander Dam Pipelines (4 pipelines â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Rubicon, Quamby/Osmast on, Caveside/DairyPlains and Hagley)

Delivery of water from Meander Dam to surrounding districts by pipeline and pumps

up to 17,000402

15,000

Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme Expansion

Expansion of the current irrigation scheme

Additional 6,000

5,000

SassafrasWesley Vale Irrigation Scheme

Delivery of water from the Mersey River through the Australian Pulp and Paper Pipeline to Wesley Vale and surrounding districts

Additional 5,000

8.7404

10,000

Status (Nov 2009)

The IDB will spend $6.6 million in 2009/10 to enable construction.401

3 pipes being constructed403

The project involves 62km of pipeline.

103

Water

8.3

Project name

Description

Water volume (ML per annum)

Cost (millions)

Irrigable area (ha)

Headquarters Road Dam

Construction of dam in the Great Forester Catchment

1,900

1,800

South East Irrigation Scheme

Developing a permanent solution to irrigation needs in the south east from Forcett, through Sorell, Richmond Tea Tree and Brighton to the lower Jordan Valley

12,500

Status (Nov 2009)

7,000

Performance Key measures of infrastructure performance are:  Financial management  Customer service  Environment  Asset management. With respect to asset management, best practice includes developing and reviewing annually asset management plans. These identify the required level of service. TIS is continually developing and improving the Asset Management plans in all of its schemes and assisting in the development of 405 asset management plans for all Tasmanian irrigation schemes. Environmental sustainability The impact of climate change on irrigation was studied by the CSIRO in 2009. The Tasmania Sustainable Yields project provided an assessment of the current and future water yield for the northern and eastern regions of Tasmania through to 2030. Its key conclusion was that demand for water can be met in full in all years for 10 of the 24 irrigation schemes examined, another five schemes can be supplied with their full demand for water in more than 80% of years, and the other five in less than 50% of years.406

8.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving irrigation infrastructure include:  Preventing water over-extraction and irrigation causing land degradation  Ensuring that drought and climate change impacts on water resources can be catered for within the water allocation and licensing arrangements  Delivery of the large capital works programs effectively and efficiently.

8.5

Report Card rating Infrastructure Type Irrigation

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

Not rated

C-

D-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s irrigation infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that there has been a significant expansion in irrigation infrastructure and improved irrigation practice. However, there are concerns about the sustainability of the expanded irrigation systems.

104

Irrigation Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Extensive capital works undertaken or planned for  Improved knowledge of sustainable water extraction volumes for irrigation  Efficiency improvements in the irrigation sector  Expansion of the irrigation sector  Increase in the use of recycled water for irrigation. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Uncertainty over the environmental impact of expanded and new irrigation schemes, including salinity  Challenges in providing the significant capital works program effectively and efficiently  Finding public investment partners for the smaller schemes.

105

Water

106

ENERGY Integrated energy policy and provision Tasmania’s energy policy and provision has undergone significant reforms in the last decade. Key developments have been:  The disaggregation in 1998 of the Hydro-Electric Corporation into separate generation (Hydro Tasmania), transmission (Transend Networks) and distribution (Aurora Energy) organisations  Joining the National Electricity Market (NEM) and trading of electricity between Tasmania and the mainland following the commissioning of the Basslink interconnector in 2006  The introduction of contestability in retail electricity supply  The introduction of natural gas to Tasmania following the commissioning of the Tasmanian Natural Gas Pipeline, and the distribution network  Augmenting the hydro-dominated electricity generation with wind and natural gas-fired generators. The objective of these reforms has been to provide secure, diverse and competitively-priced energy that enhances Tasmania’s competitive advantage and underpins economic development and lifestyle. Government policies being pursued to achieve this include:  Encouraging private sector involvement in the energy sector by developing a regulatory framework that advances market outcomes while protecting electricity customers  Ensuring that government-owned energy enterprises function commercially  Increasing energy diversity that enhances competition and reduces the risks associated with drought and the loss of one or more major electricity generators. Progressing these policy objectives has involved considering energy supply and utilisation in an integrated manner rather than focusing on each energy source individually. This integrated approach is evident in the Tasmanian Government’s energy policy statements, planning approach and government/regulation arrangements. The last few years has seen increased government attention to developing Tasmania’s renewable energy sources as the value of renewable generated electricity becomes more important due to the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme. Specifically, the Tasmanian Government has invested in lower emissions technologies and supported the development of renewable energy generation. Recently, the importance of renewable energy as a State policy priority has been highlighted in the Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change. It stated that, ‘Tasmania can aspire to generate 100% of its electricity needs from renewable resources, and to become a net exporter of renewable and low-carbon electricity to the fossil fuel-dominated national electricity 407 market’. To facilitate this, Hydro Tasmania will investigate the development of an additional 408 p 1000GWh, representing an increase in energy generation of about 10%.

This investment is being partially funded by the transfer of $220 million of equity from Transend to Hydro Tasmania in 2008 organised by the Tasmanian Government. Llewellyn, David, 2008, Ministerial Statement on equity restructuring of Hydro Tasmania and Transend Networks, 27 May 2008, p. 3. The transfer was undertaken to redress the financial imbalance created at the disaggregation of the HEC in 1998 when Hydro Tasmania inherited more than $1 billion of the former aggregated organisation’s debt. Hydro Tasmania. 2008, Hydro Tasmania welcomes equity injection, media release, 27 May.

107

Energy While the Tasmanian Government can influence to some degree new energy generation capacity, with the advent of a market-based energy sector the government cannot predict or control energy prices. Issues of water inflows into reservoirs, gas prices and national policy settings for carbon pricing will pose challenges to Tasmania’s ongoing energy supply. Critical to managing future energy will be information on future demand and supply as the energy environment changes. This makes it even more important that the Tasmanian Government completes the Energy Database q and State of Energy Report that have been under development since at least 2007. Case study: Power supply Tasmania’s electricity supply has seen major changes since 2005, which increases the security of supply for Tasmanian consumers. The period has seen the commissioning of Basslink, which allows exporting of power when excess capacity is available in Tasmania, but more importantly over the last few years of dry weather, also allows Tasmania to import power from the mainland. In 2009, the gas-fired Aurora Energy Tamar Valley power station was commissioned, which provides additional generation capacity within Tasmania. Although Basslink has its limitations, without it over the last few years, Tasmania may well have had to introduce power rationing. These are good examples of infrastructure projects that improve security and reliability of a vital service.

Case study: Gas rollout The initial phase of the gas rollout has been completed with the major ‘spine’ of the network installed and branches to some major industrial users completed, providing a cheaper source of heating to the benefit of the industries, and also to domestic users along the route. The government incentives for rolling out of the distribution pipelines have finished and hence additional pipelines are only installed on a user pays system. This means that large users are required to justify the upfront cost. The issue of equity is also raised, where those lucky enough to have the initial rollout passing their property have cheap access to a low cost energy (heat) source, while others do not have the opportunity, as there is no subsidy available to justify installing additional pipelines. Presumably it was anticipated that once a critical mass of users was established, a progressive expansion of the distribution pipeline would be funded from the sale of gas; however, this does not seem to be the case.

The Tasmanian Energy Database provides consolidated information on energy use within Tasmania, while the creation of a State of Energy Report will provide advice on the current status of the supply and demand balance in Tasmania and identify future requirements. The database is linked to the State Infrastructure Planning System (SIPS) being developed by DIER.

108

Electricity

9.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Electricity

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C+

B-

This rating recognises that Tasmania’s generation system coupled with the interconnector has high supply reliability and security. It also reflects the ongoing improvements that are underway to enhance the quality of the transmission and distribution networks. Since the last Report Card, the major electricity developments have been:  The commencement of electricity trading between Tasmania and the mainland  The introduction of electricity retail contestability  Low inflows into hydro reservoirs for many years resulting in increased dependence on electricity imported from Victoria and generated from gas-fired plants  A significant increase in Tasmanian electricity prices  Development of the State’s wind resources and exploration of expanding other renewable energy sources. Recently completed and in-progress major infrastructure projects include:  The commissioning of Basslink, which commenced commercial operation in April 2006  The commissioning of the Aurora Energy Tamar Valley (AETV) Power Station in late 2009  Returning to service the Lake Margaret hydro-electric power station  Significant infrastructure upgrade of transmission and distribution systems  The closure and decommissioning of the Bell Bay Power Station in April 2009. Challenges to improving electricity infrastructure include:  Addressing Basslink infrastructure vulnerabilities  Ensuring competition given the market structure  Building secure generation capacity  Improving the transmission and distribution system  Implementing significant demand management measures.

9.2

Infrastructure overview

9.2.1

System description Electricity infrastructure refers to stationary electricity networks that comprise interconnected electricity transmission and distribution systems, together with connected generating systems, facilities and loads. It includes non-renewable and renewable generation. It excludes mobile r generators and non-grid connected electricity systems. Tasmania’s physical electricity infrastructure comprises:  Generation (2677.8MW)

Embedded generation which are not directly connected to the transmission system. These are Cascade renewables (mini-hydro 1.32MW); Jackson Street, Glenorchy (land fill gas 2.0MW); Launceston (land fill gas 1.1MW); McRobies Gully (land fill gas 2.0MW); Meander Dam (mini-hydro 1.9MW); Morinna (mini-hydro); Nieterana (mini-hydro 2.2MW); Parangana (mini-hydro 0.78MW); and Temco (energy recovery 10MW). Transend 2009 Annual Planning Report, pp. 46-48.

109

Energy Transmission networks (3,650 circuit kilometres of transmission lines, 47 substations and nine switching stations)  Distribution networks (15,500km of high voltage line, 7,500km of low voltage line and 30,000 distribution substations)  Retail companies (four licensed retailers). 

National Energy Market Tasmania is connected to the National Energy Market (NEM) via the Basslink undersea cable. The NEM spans Victoria, Queensland, NSW, ACT, SA and Tasmania. Across the NEM, 275 registered generators offer to supply power and this is bought by retailers. The central coordination of the dispatch of electricity from generators is the responsibility of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). Figure 9.1 illustrates the inter-relationship between the physical and financial components on the NEM. While generation and retail have been opened to competition, due to the nature of transmission and distribution networks, these are regulated monopolies. The majority of Tasmania’s generation is hydro-electric and owned by Hydro Tasmania. The transmission network is owned by Transend and the distribution network by Aurora Energy. Figure 9.1: Structure of the National Electricity Market (NEM)409

Transmission network (Transend)

plant dispatch instructions

Generators (Hydro Tasmania and others) & interconnector (Basslink)

Distribution network (Aurora Energy)

physical electricity flows

load dispatch instructions *

AEMO determines the amount of power required

supply offers

Consumers

purchase bids *

electricity settlement payments

financial contracts * currently no customers submit demand side bids

Generation Over 80% of Tasmania’s electricity generation capacity is hydro-electric as seen in Table 9.1 which identifies the generation capacity connected to the transmission network in Tasmania as at June 2009. Table 9.1: Generator capacity as of June 2009410 Generator type

Number of power stations

Hydro

Thermal (natural gas)

One power station and four gas turbines

Wind

Two wind farms

Total

Total name-plate capacity (MW)

Proportion of capacity

2,267.2MW

81%

403MW

14%

139.75MW

2,809.95MW

100%

There are currently 11 companies licensed to generate electricity in Tasmania, with Hydro 411 Tasmania being the owner of the vast majority of generation.

110

Electricity The details including the commissioning dates of all generation are listed in Table 9.2. Table 9.2: Tasmanian generation plants412 Power Station

Date(s) Commissioned

Turbines (hydro unless stated otherwise)

Capacity (MW)

Tarraleah

1938/1951

90.0

Butlers Gorge

1951

12.2

Tungatinah

1953/56

125

Trevallyn

1955

95.0

Lake Echo

1956

32.0

Wayatinah

1957

38.4

Liapootah

1960

83.7

Catagunya

1962

48.0

Poatina

1964, 1977

300.0

Tods Corner

1966

1.6

Meadowbank

1967

40.0

Cluny

1968

17.0

Repulse

1968

28.0

Rowallan

1968

10.4

Lemonthyme

1969

51.0

Devils Gate

1969

60.0

Wilmot

1971

Bell Bay (decommissioned 2009)

1971, 1974

Cethana Paloona

30.6

2 steam 2x120MW

1971

85.0

1972

28.0

Fisher

1973

43.2

Gordon

1978, 1988

432.0

Mackintosh

1982

79.9

Bastyan

1983

79.9

Reece

1986, 1987

231.2

John Butters

1992

144.0

Tribute

1994

82.8

Parangana

2002

0.75

Woolnorth

2004

37 wind

64.75

Bell Bay Three

2006

3 gas

95.0

Lake Margaret

2009 (recommissioned)

8.5

Aurora Energy Tamar Valley (AETV)

2009

OCGT 3x58MW, CCGT 208.9MW

384.0

Total

2677.8

Transmission Tasmania’s transmission network can be divided into:  An interconnector that links Tasmania with Victoria as part of the National Electricity Market  Intrastate networks that link generators and the interconnector to the distribution networks in Tasmania. Tasmania’s transmission network is illustrated in Figure 9.2.

111

Energy Figure 9.2: Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity transmission networks413

Interconnector Interconnectors connect the transmission networks of different jurisdictions. They enhance competition by allowing multiple generators to compete to supply, as well as improving security and reliability of supply. The interconnector connecting Tasmania with Victoria is the Basslink 400kV monopolar direct current (DC) submarine cable. Its connection points are at Loy Yang in Victoria and George Town 414 substation in Tasmania. Table 9.3 lists details of Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interconnector.

112

Electricity Table 9.3: Tasmania’s interconnector Network

Location

Line length

Owner

Basslink

Vic-Tas

375km in total with 290km undersea

CitySpring Infrastructure Trust (Temesek Holdings (Singapore) 28%)

Basslink has continuous import capacity of up to 480MW, with a maximum export capacity of 600MW. It has operational temperature constraints that limits its ability to supply during heatwaves. It can operate unconstrained for Victorian temperatures up to 43°C, and for the Tasmanian end up 415 to 33°C. During the January 2009 heatwave, the ambient air temperature exceeded the design limit in Tasmania and transfers were stopped. This contributed to brownouts in Victoria. As well as exporting power, Basslink has been used to import power. Without Basslink and the new gas-powered electricity generation, Tasmania would have experienced power rationing in the last 416 few years. Intrastate transmission network The Tasmanian transmission system comprises:  A 220kV bulk transmission network which, with supporting 110kV transmission circuits, transfers power from major generation centres to major load centres and facilitates transfers between major load centres  A peripheral 110kV transmission network, and connection assets, which is largely radial and connects load centres or generators to the bulk transmission network 417  Connection points made up of 44kV, 33kV, 22kV, 11kV and 6.6kV assets. Table 9.4 lists details of the transmission network. Table 9.4: Transmission network elements in Tasmania418

Overhead lines (circuit km)

220kV

110kV

Total

1,499

2,110

3,609

Underground cables (circuit km)

Number of transformers installed

106

The network is owned by Transend Networks, which is a State-owned Company. Transmission companies are regulated monopolies and the Australian Energy Regulator regulates the prices that Transend is allowed to charge. The AER recently set the prices for the current regulatory period, which runs from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014. The current regulatory period allows Transend to increase its prices, with the result being an increased cost for the typical residential customer of $18 in the first year and $9.50 in each of the following four years. This price increase was justified on the basis of:  Increased capital expenditure to meet new reliability standards  The need to replace and maintain ageing assets  Increased input costs such as construction materials and labour 419  Increased operating costs due to a growing asset base.

Circuit kilometres represent the length of an overhead or underground feeder comprising a group of one or more conductors which form one electrical circuit.

113

Energy Distribution The distribution network is responsible for carrying electricity at high and low voltage (44kV and below), and supplying it to customers. Only Tasmania’s largest electricity customers receive supply t directly from the transmission network via dedicated distribution high voltage feeders. Aurora Energy is the monopoly provider of the distribution network. It is a State-owned company. Its distribution network consists of 15,500km of high voltage line, 7,500km of low voltage line and 30,000 distribution substations. It has 15 zone substations at 44kV, 33kV, 22kV and 11kV voltage levels, and takes supply at 260 connection points across mainland Tasmania from either Transend 420 Networks or Hydro Tasmania. Its assets are listed in Table 9.5. Table 9.5: Distribution network elements in Tasmania421 44kV

33kV

22kV

11kV & below

Low voltage (640 volts and under)

Total

Overhead lines (circuit km)

11,237

3,009

7,287

21674

Underground cables (circuit km)

392

570

1,027

2023

Number of transformers installed

20,112

8,217

28338

Distribution companies are regulated monopolies, and prices in Tasmania are established currently by the Tasmanian Electricity Regulator. After the expiry of the current determination which runs from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2012, prices will be regulated by the Australian Energy Regulator. In the 2009 revision to Aurora Energy’s Network Tariff Pricing, distribution charges were increased. These have resulted in an increase of between 5.2 and 6.0% for retail customers, 3.9% for small business customers, 8.5% for medium business customers and up to 16.3% for larger business 422 customers. The majority of the rural high voltage distribution network consists of overhead lines. The rural lines are typically radial with limited interconnection between adjacent rural feeders, resulting in less supply security than urban feeders which have a high degree of interconnection. Underground 423 cables are located mostly within central business districts and commercial centres. An increasing number of customers are purchasing their own substations to be able to access a contestable high voltage tariff. Retail Retail electricity competition has been progressively introduced since 2006. Competition was initially introduced for large electricity consumers (at least 20GWh per annum) and has been introduced for all classes except for those under 50MWh/yr. The timetable for retail contestability is listed in Table 9.6. In December 2009, the Tasmanian Government stated that ‘it will not proceed to full retail contestability for domestic customers at this point, but will continually review the costs and 424 benefits of doing so’. Once a customer segment is allowed to source electricity from a retailer of its choice, it is defined as becoming contestable. Customer segments that are non-contestable remain on scheduled tariffs with Aurora Energy. Scheduled tariffs are set under a pricing determination issued by the Tasmanian Energy Regulator and the current determination, which applies from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, saw an increase of business tariffs rising by between 7.2% and 15.1%. The increase was justified on the basis of higher inflation, higher distribution and 425 transmission charges, and other increased costs such as Renewable Energy Certificates. t

There are a small number of HV customers with their own substations who take electricity supply directly at 22,000 volts or 11,000 volts. There are 16 major industrial (MI) customers that are either supplied directly from Transend’s transmission substations or via dedicated distribution HV feeders.

114

Electricity Table 9.6: Tasmanian electricity retail contestability timetable426 Date

Power consumption

Approximate number

Indicative customer type

1 July 2006

Greater than 20GWh/yr

Mineral processors

1 July 2007

Between 20GWh/yr and 4GWh/yr

Large industrial facilities and commercial complexes

1 July 2008

Between 4GWh/yr and 0.75GWh/yr

330

Medium factories and smaller commercial complexes

1 July 2009

Between 0.75GWh/yr and 0.15GWh/yr

1,375

Small factories and large offices

1 January 2011

Between 0.15GWh/yr and 0.05GWh/yr (i.e. 150MWh/yr and 50MWh/yr)

2,600

Small business and medium sized offices

Tasmania has four electricity retailers offering services: Aurora Energy, TRUenergy, Country u Energy and ERM Power Retail with Aurora Energy having the vast majority of customers. The number of electricity customers in Tasmania is listed in Table 9.7. Table 9.7: Tasmanian electricity customer numbers at July 2009427 Classification of customers

Customer numbers

Domestic

224,983

Business

44,553

Major industrial Total

20 269,556

Bass Strait islands The power supply on the two Bass Strait islands of King Island and Flinders Island is provided by a combination of diesel and wind, and the distribution systems are owned by Hydro Tasmania and operated by Aurora Energy. On King Island, generation consists of:  Huxley Hill Wind Farm, which has an installed capacity of 2.5MW from three 250kW Nordex turbines, and two 850kW Vestas turbines, commissioned in 1998 and 2003 respectively 428  Four 16-cylinder diesel engines which have a capacity of 6.05MW. On Flinders Island, generation consists of:  Four diesel engines in a power station at Whitemark with a capacity of 2.65MW, operated by Hydro Tasmania  Two wind generators (one of 55kW installed in 1998 and one of 25kW installed in 1996 at Hays 429 Hill, near Whitemark). They are owned by a private company. Power produced from the farm is purchased by Hydro Tasmania. Hydro Tasmania has a formal agreement with the Tasmanian Government to provide concessional arrangements to electricity customers on the Bass Strait islands as a declared Community Service Obligation. Net costs of around $7 million per annum are funded by the State Government. Aurora Energy delivers these arrangements to customers through a sub-contract. The Tasmanian .430 Government determines the Bass Strait islands’ tariffs

Integral Energy surrendered their licence effective from 31 October 2008.

115

Energy Demand The demand for electricity varies with economic growth, season, weather and a host of other factors. Table 9.8 identifies the growth in demand over the last few years in Tasmania and nationally. Table 9.8: Consumption (GWh)431 TAS GWh

Nationally Change(%)

GWh

Change (%)

2004/05

10,065.7

187,157.3

2005/06

10,015.0

-0.5

190,335.3

1.7

2006/07

9,809.9

-2.0

195,947.6

2.9

2007/08

10,319.2

5.2

198,830.8

1.5

2008/09

10,503.0

1.8

201,306.8

1.2

Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s winter demand is higher than summer demand and this is due to domestic heating. Peak summer demand periods occur when air temperature is high, resulting in air-conditioners being switched on. Figure 9.3 illustrates the demand for typical summer and winter days in 2007/08. Figure 9.3: Typical winter and summer weekday load curves432

The locations of the generation and loads are shown in Figure 9.4 as is the demand forecast growth. It is significant to note that most generators are distant from their load centres meaning that v significant transmission infrastructure is required to connect the two.

The main load centres are connected to the bulk transmission network at 220kV. These are located at George Town, Chapel Street (Hobart), Sheffield (Devonport and Burnie) and Hadspen (Launceston and North East areas). Other load centres and generation locations are connected via the 110kV peripheral transmission network. Power transfers take place between the bulk transmission network and the peripheral transmission network via 220/110kV auto-transformers at Sheffield, Burnie, Palmerston, George Town, Chapel Street, Farrell and Hadspen. The 110kV peripheral transmission network provides transmission support to the 220kV bulk transmission network. Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 53.

116

Electricity Figure 9.4: Load growth related to existing generation433

9.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy objectives for electricity are stated in the 2004 Tasmanian Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy policy statement entitled Powering Prosperity. They consist of delivering a diverse, reliable and competitively-priced energy to all Tasmanian consumers. The specific policy decisions to achieve this include introducing market competition, building non-hydro-power generation to reduce the drought risk, and augmenting transmission and distribution networks to ensure a reliable, quality supply.

117

Energy The governance of the Tasmanian electricity sector is provided by a combination of Tasmanian and national organisations, legislation and regulation. Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are:  The Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator (OTTER). The Office is responsible for regulation of the electricity industry, and its responsibilities are articulated in the Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995 and accompanying regulations.  Workplace Standards Tasmania (WST). WST administers the processes and requirements for electrical licensing and technical safety.  The Energy Customer Consultative Committee (ECCC) (Tasmanian Government). The ECCC is an advisory body appointed in accordance with the Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995 and the Gas Act which aims to ensure that energy user groups are kept informed of industry developments and that OTTER is kept informed of issues from these groups.  Energy Ombudsman of Tasmania. The Ombudsman receives, investigates and resolves complaints concerning any service relating to the sale and supply of electricity.  Environment Protection Authority Tasmania (EPAT). The Environment Division within EPAT is responsible for the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act.  Office of Energy Planning and Conservation ((Tasmanian Government). This unit within the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources provides policy advice on energy issues to the Minister for Energy and Resources, and represents Tasmania’s views on energy matters to national policy and regulatory bodies. It also provides input into the regulatory framework of 434 industry participants in Tasmania’s energy industry.  Australian Energy Markets Operator (AEMO). The AEMO is responsible for overseeing the reliability and security of the NEM, managing the NEM, and national transmission planning for the electricity transmission grid.  Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). The AEMC is responsible for rule-making, market development and policy advice on the NEM.  Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for the enforcement of and compliance with the National Electricity Rules, as well as responsibility for the economic regulation of electricity transmission. The AER issues infringement notices for certain breaches of the National Electricity Law and Rules, and is the body responsible for bringing court 435 proceedings in respect of breaches. It is part of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Key electricity Acts and regulatory documents are the:  Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995. This is the principal Act governing the operation of electricity supply.  Tasmanian Electricity Code. The Code sets out the detailed arrangements for the regulation of the Tasmanian electricity supply industry. It was modelled on the National Electricity Code (which subsequently became the National Electricity Rules) with amendments made to reflect the differences between the Tasmanian industry and the National Electricity Market.  The National Electricity Law and Rules. The National Electricity Law is applied as law in Tasmania by application statutes. The National Electricity Rules provide the detailed standards that govern participation in, and the operation of, the NEM. Planning of Tasmania’s electricity system principally involves generators, transmission and distribution owners and operators with oversight from governance, regulatory and advisory bodies at state and national levels. Key planning documents to guide the development of Tasmania’s electricity sector are summarised in Table 9.9.

118

Electricity Table 9.9: Key planning documents

9.2.3

Document

Description

Transend Annual Planning Report

This document provides information on the performance of the transmission network, forecasts electricity energy and maximum demand, and identifies committed, advanced and completed transmission network augmentation.

Aurora Energy Distribution System Planning Report

The DSPR summarises information on the distribution-planning constraints with respect to capacity, security and system performance, and how Aurora Energy intends to address the challenges.

Reliability Review

This yearly report provides an assessment of the reliability of the Tasmanian power system and its reliability outlook for the following two years. It was produced by the Reliability and Network Planning Panel until the Panel was dissolved in 2009. In future, the report will be produced by the Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator.436

Electricity Statement of Opportunities (ESOO)

The ESOO is published annually by AEMO and provides a 10-year forecast to assist market participants assess the future need for electricity generating capacity, demand side capacity, and augmentation of the network to support the operation of the NEM.

National Transmission Statement (NTS)/National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP)

These documents are published by AEMO in its role as the National Transmission Planner for the electricity transmission grid. In 2009, an interim National Transmission Statement (NTS) was produced which replaced the previous Annual National Transmission Statement produced by NEMMCO. This document will be superseded by the National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP) from 2010. The NTNDP will provide historical data and projections of network utilisation and congestion, summarise emerging reliability issues and potential network solutions, and present information on potential network augmentations and non-network alternatives and their ability to address the projected congestion.437

Sector trends Growing electricity demand 438

Electricity consumption in Tasmania is forecast to grow by 1.1% annually over the next 10 years. Winter maximum demand is expected to grow by 1.62% annually while summer demand will grow 439 by 1.76% annually. The year by year demand increase against capacity is illustrated in Figure 9.5. The increase in capacity in 2009/10 was due to the commissioning of Tamar Valley Power Station, and the decrease from 2011/12 is due to the increase in capacity exports to Victoria, thus affecting the 440 installed capacity allocated to Tasmania. Figure 9.5: Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projected summer electricity demand and capacity441

119

Energy Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity supply is dependent on the capacity of current and future generation plants as well as the water available for generation. See Drought and climate change impacts on electricity generation for information on the latter. Planned new generation is listed in Table 9.10. However, some of these projects will only proceed under certain economic, environmental and policy conditions. Table 9.10: Planned and proposed new generation442 Project

Energy source

Proponent

Description

Expected capacity improvement/ new capacity

Level of commitment

Trevallyn Power Station

Hydro

Hydro Tasmania

Upgrade the capacity of two generators

13MW

Publicly announced

Musselroe wind farm

Wind

Roaring 40s

A 56-turbine wind farm and transmission line to Tasmanian electricity grid at Derby

168MW

Advanced

Robbins Island and Jimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plain

Wind

Pacific Hydro/local developer

A new wind farm located on the north-west coast of Tasmania

Up to 360MW

Investigation

Longreach Pulp Mill

Wood waste

Gunns Ltd

The proposed project includes an electricity cogeneration facility that will raise steam by burning black liquor and wood waste. The pulp mill will consume approximately 95MW, and be capable of generating up to 188MW. Approximately 60MW of excess generation would be available to be supplied to the transmission network.

188MW

On hold

East Coast Hot Rocks

Geothermal

KUTh Energy

Cattle Hill Wind Farm

Wind

NP Power

Other

Wind

White Rock Wind Farm

Wind

Banks Strait Tidal Energy Facility

Wave

Publicly advertised

5km east of Lake Echo

150-210MW

Environmental impact statement underway

Spring Hill Tier in Midlands (32MW) and others

Up to 375MW443

Various

Eureka Funds Management

100km north-east of Launceston

400MW

Pre-feasibility study underway

Tenax Energy Pty Ltd

Banks Strait location

302MW

Government approval underway

The location of the planned and proposed new generation is illustrated in Figure 9.6.

120

Electricity Figure 9.6: Planned generation developments for Tasmania444

Numbers of photovoltaic (PV) systems are growing in Tasmania, but are limited to household and small-scale installations. During 2008/09, over 600 photovoltaic solar systems were installed in the 445 State with some 376 connected to the State's main electricity grid, and 225 off-grid. The average 446 size of a system installed in Tasmania is currently 1.47 kW. Based on an assessment by AEMO, electricity supply in Tasmania will exceed demand until at least 2018/19, which is predicted to be the year when the low reserve condition (LRC) point is reached. The LRC point is the first year that the reserve generation margin is projected to fall below the minimum reserve level, resulting in demand exceeding supply. It is based on assessing the existing and committed generation against future demands. Table 9.11 identifies the LRC points for several Australian States. Transend also notes that if low rainfall conditions continue, energy capacity will be reduced to a point where the hydro system will be unable to meet the Tasmanian demand beyond 2024. Table 9.11: Projected Low Reserve Condition points as of 2009447 Region

LRC point based on existing and committed generation

Queensland

2014/15

New South Wales

2015/16

Victoria and South Australia (combined)

2013/14

South Australia (local)

2012/13

Tasmania

Beyond 2018/19

121

Energy Drought and climate change impacts on electricity generation Due to the fact that Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity supply is dominated by hydro-electric generation, the actual available energy is constrained by the available water in its reservoirs. The last few years have seen a significant decline in reservoir storage due to drought. The lowest levels were reached in 2008 when levels were as low as 18%. The period between October 2007 and May 2008 was 448 the driest in terms of hydro storage for 75 years. Storage levels over this decade are identified in Figure 9.7. Above average rainfalls in the second half of 2009 resulted in a progressive increase in storage, as has the policy of Hydro Tasmania to protect water storages by importing power via Basslink and using gas-powered generation. Figure 9.7: Hydro Tasmania storage levels449

Inflows into storage reservoirs can vary up to 35% a year as seen in Figure 9.8. Figure 9.8: Storage inflow variability over the last century450

Climate change is expected to impact inflows into Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reservoirs, but this change is not expected to be significant. One study identified that by 2040, winter and early spring rainfall will increase in all catchments by around 1mm to 2mm per year in each of those months. There will also be a drying trend in the north east in the first half of the year, only partly compensated by increased rainfall later in the year. Annual rainfall is projected to increase by 7% to 11% in all

122

Electricity 451

catchments except in the south east, where it will decrease by around 8%. Further work is underway to identify more precisely the impact under different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Growing wind power generation and its impact on electricity networks Wind power is rapidly growing as a source of generation in Tasmania, and its deployment will accelerate due to the MRET program. In 2008/09, wind accounted for 5.6% of total generated 452 electricity (that is, 46GWh). Table 9.12 lists the operating, approved and planned wind power generators in Tasmania. Table 9.12: Tasmania wind energy industry Status

Wind Energy Capacity (MW)

Operating wind farms

139

Approved wind farms (not operational)

138

Proposed wind farms Total

735 1012

There are two main problems with wind from an electricity network’s perspective. Firstly, wind farms are often located a considerable distance from existing generation and consumption areas. This means that costly new or augmentation transmission lines are typically required. Secondly, the w intermittent nature of wind generation can cause risks to system reliability and security. In 2008, Transend decided, as a part of 30-year grid vision, to determine the maximum amount of wind generation that could be integrated into the Tasmanian transmission system. The study found that 1,300MW of wind generation could be incorporated into the Tasmanian system with Basslink in x service if certain mitigation measures are put in place.

9.3

Performance

9.3.1

NEM reliability and security The performance of the NEM is based on the criteria of:  Reliability, the availability of adequate bulk supply to meet consumer demand. The current standard for reliability is that there should be sufficient generation and bulk transmission capacity so that no more than 0.002% of the annual energy of consumers in any region is at risk of not being supplied, that unserved energy (USE) is less than 0.002%.  Security, the continuous operation of the power system within its technical limits. The AEMC Reliability Panel is responsible for determining the standards for reliability and security against which the NEM’s performance is assessed. In terms of reliability, Tasmania has had no 453 breach of the reliability standard since it joined the NEM. In 2009, there were no instances of unserved energy recorded due to inadequate generation in Tasmania. However, there was unserved energy associated with a mainland loss of power affecting Tasmania. Mainland power 454 losses affecting Tasmania may reoccur in the future.

Specific problems include wind generators do not provide inertia to the system; they generally provide a reduced level of, or no, frequency control ancillary services (FCAS); some wind turbine types provide reduced voltage control capability; they provide a reduced contribution to system fault levels; some wind turbines cannot ride through network faults; they often connect into weak parts of the network; they can cause power quality problems. Transend, 2009, Future wind generation in Tasmania, p. 5. x The mitigation measures were system inertia maintained through the use of generators operating in synchronous condenser mode and with wind generators offering Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS). Transend, 2009, Future wind generation in Tasmania, pp. 6-7.

123

Energy 9.3.2

Generation A key performance indicator for generation is its system load factor. This gives an indication of the consistency of the load on the system. The system load factor in Tasmania has remained above the national average as shown in Table 9.13. Table 9.13: Technical indicators: generation455 System load factor (%) 2006/07

2007/08

Tasmania

69.6

71.1

Australian weighted average

60.6

60.2

Another indicator is the equivalent availability factor that reflects the time that a generation plant is available for operation, which in turn reflects the quality of maintenance. The adjective equivalent refers to the conversion of partial outages to equivalent full plant outages assessed on an energy basis. Availability of generation plant in Tasmania is above the national average generally, as shown in Table 9.14, partly because hydro-electric power plants are inherently more reliable than coal-fired plants. Table 9.14: Hydro-generation plant availability456 Plant availability

Target for 2009/10

Overall availability (%)

9.3.3

>90

2003/04 91.4

2004/05 90.7

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

87.87

90.35

89.25

90.16

Transmission Key transmission performance indicators are:  Network system reliability as measured by the number of loss of supply events and system minutes unsupplied  Transmission plant availability as measured by line circuit availability and transformer availability. Network reliability is reported in terms of the number of loss of supply (LOS) events and measured in system minutes. This is calculated by dividing the total energy not supplied to customers throughout the year (MWh) by the maximum demand (MW). Table 9.15 shows the LOS performance of the transmission network over recent years and Transend’s targets. Table 9.15: Transmission network loss of supply performance457 Performance measure

Target

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Number of LOS events >0.1 system minute

≤ 16

Number of LOS events >2.0 system minutes

≤3

Transmission plant availability is reported in terms of percentage plant availability. This is defined as the ratio of plant circuit-hours available for transmission plant (plant that is either in service or readily capable of being placed into service) divided by the total possible plant circuit-hours. Table 9.16 shows the performance of the key components on the transmission network and their targets.

124

Electricity Table 9.16: Transmission plant availability458 Performance measure

2001/02 %

2002/03 %

2003/04 %

2004/05 %

2005/06 %

2006/07 %

2007/08 %

2008/09 %

Transmission line circuit availability

99.17

98.86

99.22

99.29

98.68

99.38

99.10

99.49

Transformer availability

99.13

99.52

99.22

99.60

99.00

98.81

99.41

99.17

Capacitor bank availability

98.83

98.76

96.17

99.77

99.72

97.46

99.98

National comparative figures are shown in Table 9.17. Table 9.17: Comparative transmission indicators459 System minutes unsupplied (mins)

Victoria

2006/07

2007/08

3.69

0.73

Tasmania

7.16

4.95

Australian total

2008/09 460

1.83

Energy delivered (GWh)

Circuit availability (%)

2006/07

2007/08

2006/07

2007/08

46,688

50,426

99.3

99.1

10,504

11,187

99.4

99.1

201,634

206,681

There are a number of known problems with the transmission network. These include:  Transmission limitations on the west coast area include the Farrell–Rosebery, Farrell– Queenstown, and Farrell–Que 110kV transmission lines that currently do not comply with network performance requirements.  The Waratah Tee–Savage River 110kV transmission line experiences overload issues during extreme temperatures in summer months. At Rosebery substation, firm capacity is forecast to be exceeded in 2010 and is expected to exceed network performance requirements by 2015.  Savage River, Que and Newton substations, which mainly supply industrial customers, do not comply with network performance requirements.  The Sheffield–Burnie 110kV transmission line is operated non-firm at certain times of the year.  A number of substations in the north-west area are expected to exceed firm capacity within the next five years including the Burnie Substation in 2010, the Devonport Substation in 2015, and the Sheffield Substation in 2011.  In the George Town area, security issues currently exist on the 220kV bus bars.  The George Town–Temco 110kV transmission line is operated non-firm.  In northern Tasmania, the Norwood and St Marys substations are currently non-firm.  The Derby Substation currently does not comply with the network performance requirements.  The Palmerston–Avoca and Avoca–St Marys, Palmerston–Arthurs Lake and Hadspen– Trevallyn 110kV transmission lines do not comply with network performance requirements. The Hadspen–Norwood 110kV transmission line is expected to breach the network performance requirements by 2011.  The Trevallyn– Mowbray 110kV transmission line is expected to become non-firm in 2011.  In southern Tasmania, the following substations do not comply with network performance requirements for a transformer failure: Kingston (now), Lindisfarne (now), Meadowbank, Rokeby (2011) and Sorell (2011).  The North Hobart Substation is forecast to exceed the firm transformer capacity in 2014.  The Chapel Street–Risdon 110kV transmission line is expected to be non-firm until the new 461 Waddamana–Lindisfarne 220kV transmission line is commissioned. Transend’s committed and advanced projects are listed in Table 9.18.

125

Energy Table 9.18: Transend’s committed and advanced projects462

9.3.4

Project

Purpose

Expected Completion year

Burnie Substation network transformer replacement

Improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs

2010

Emu Bay Substation redevelopment

Improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs

2011

George Town Substation transformer replacements

Compliance with network performance requirements and improve reliability

2009

High voltage capacitor bank installation program

Improve voltages at customer connection points

2009

High voltage connection point protection replacements program

Improve functionality and operational flexibility to provide higher customer reliability

2010

Queenstown Substation transformer replacements

Compliance with network performance requirements and improve reliability

2009

Risdon Substation capacitor bank installation

Compliance with NER and provide voltage stability

2010

Sheffield Substation 220kV security upgrade

Compliance with network performance requirements and NER

2009

Waddamana–Lindisfarne 220kV transmission line

Improve the security, capacity and reliability of electricity supply to southern Tasmania

2010

Waddamana Substation 110kV ring bus establishment

Improve the reliability of electricity supply to southern Tasmania

2010

Mornington Substation development

Compliance with network performance requirements and increase the capacity of electricity supply to Hobart’s eastern shore

2011

Distribution Performance on the distribution network is measured by:  Reliability and quality of supply, measured by:  System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). The sum of the duration of each sustained customer interruption (in minutes), divided by the total number of distribution customers. SAIDI excludes momentary interruptions (one minute or less duration).  System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). The total number of sustained customer interruptions, divided by the total number of distribution customers. SAIFI excludes momentary interruptions (one minute or less duration).  The Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) is a reliability index defined as the SAIDI divided by the SAIFI. CAIDI gives the average outage duration that any given customer would experience and can also be viewed as the average restoration time.  Distribution efficiencies, measured by:  Distribution losses. Electrical losses in a network increase with line length and are proportionate to the amount of power carried, and vary with network use, network configuration, the shape of the load profile and the level of reactive power support.  Distribution utilisation factor. The annual amount of electricity sold compared to distribution transformer annual capability. Table 9.19 presents the distribution system reliability indicators for Aurora Energy. Table 9.19: Distribution system reliability indicators463

126

System indices

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

SAIDI (overall)

220 minutes

257 minutes

199 minutes

239 minutes

244 minutes

314 minutes

SAIDI (normalised)

138 minutes

192 minutes

188 minutes

183 minutes

170 minutes

217 minutes

Electricity System indices

2008/09

2007/08

2006/07

2005/06

2004/05

2003/04

SAIFI (overall)

1.65 interruptions

2.05 interruptions

2.00 interruptions

2.29 interruptions

2.21 interruptions

3.02 interruptions

SAIFI (normalised)

1.28 interruptions

1.76 interruptions

1.89 interruptions

1.96 interruptions

2.09 interruptions

2.45 interruptions

Table 9.20 lists the distribution system reliability indicators for Aurora Energy and other State distributors. Table 9.20: Distribution system reliability indicators464 System reliability 1

State

Outage duration

Outage frequency

Outage time

SAIDI

SAIFI

CAIDI

2006/07

2007/08

2006/07

2007/08

2006/07

2007/08

New South Wales & ACT

347.2

173.6

1.8

1.6

191.1

106.8

Victoria

158.6

192.1

1.9

1.8

84.7

109.5

Queensland

283.4

255.9

2.6

2.3

108.3

113.5

South Australia

177.2

144.7

1.7

1.4

105.5

102.6

Tasmania

200.0

274.9

2.0

2.2

99.5

124.8

Australian weighted average

263.6

207.6

2.1

1.9

125.6

108.2

Table 9.21 presents the distribution efficiency indicators for Aurora Energy and other State distributors. Table 9.21: Distribution efficiency indicators465 Technical indicators

Distribution losses (%)

Distribution utilisation factor (%)

State

2006/07

2007/08

2006/07

2007/08

New South Wales & ACT

5.1

4.5

17.25

16.05

Victoria

5.7

5.3

17.0

17.9

Queensland

6.6

6.0

25.3

27.6

South Australia

6.0

5.8

N/A

Tasmania

4.3

3.9

32.6

35.0

Australian weighted average

5.6

5.1

The Tasmanian Electricity Code defines the reliability performance expectations for five community categories.  Critical Infrastructure: A section of the Hobart CBD enveloping the headquarters of various essential services including police, hospital, fire brigade and ambulance  High Density Commercial: Areas including the main commercial centres in six major Tasmanian cities  Urban: Suburban areas of the cities and some larger rural towns  High Density Rural: Rural areas that have higher energy consumption such as dairy farmers and agribusinesses  Low Density Rural: Rural areas that have lower energy consumption. The annual distribution system performance figures for each category are presented in Table 9.22. It shows that the average number of interruptions was about the same or less than the limit, but the minutes off supply were all higher than the limits. This performance is worse than experienced in 2007/08. 127

Energy Table 9.22: Distribution system performance for each community category 2008/09466 Average number of interruptions Community category Critical infrastructure

Frequency limit

08/09 category frequency

Average minutes off supply Duration limit

08/09 category duration

0.20

0.21

High density commercial

0.62

Urban

1.42

120

199

Higher density rural

3.44

480

563

Lower density rural

3.97

600

687

Aurora Energy in its 2009 Distribution System Planning Report identified 29 areas where there is substandard supply reliability. These consisted of three high density commercial, 17 urban, four high density rural and five low density rural areas. Aurora Energy has stated that it plans to address 467 these problems over the next two years. Figure 9.9 illustrates the reliability by category and region. Figure 9.9: The reliability by category and region468

128

Electricity 9.3.5

Retail The key performance measures for retailers are price, billing and revenue collection, and customer service. The Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator monitors retailers against their licence obligations, and the Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008/09 did not identify any significant issues.

9.3.6

Environmental sustainability Electricity companies manage their environment risks through an Environmental Management System (EMS), typically certified to the International Standard ISO 14001. For Hydro Tasmania, key environmental challenges are achieving sustainable use of natural resources. The organisation’s environmental policy was revised most recently in 2007 and its key environmental programs cover the aquatic environment, land environment, cultural heritage, and 469 greenhouse emissions. It has embarked on the 1000GWh Project, which involves recovering 1,000GWh of energy lost due to a reduction in inflows as a result of drought and climate change. This program will include proposed enhancements to existing hydro stations including catchment diversions and diversion upgrades; new storages to act as regulating storages to capture higher inflows in winter and raising existing storages; mini hydro schemes; and new power station development or redevelopment of existing power stations. Construction of the first of these 470 projects, the redevelopment of the upper Lake Margaret Power Station, has already begun. For Transend, key environmental challenges relate to managing the 3.6 million litres of oil contained in substation equipment, and land and vegetation issues associated with substation sites 471 and transmission line easements. For Aurora Energy, key environmental risks are:  Management of assets containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)  Oil and chemical spill response  Electro-magnetic field enquiries  Noise management  Recycling and waste management  Effect of work on flora and fauna. One key method being pursued by Aurora Energy to reduce environmental risks is to retire assets 472 that pose significant risks. All energy sector players are cognisant of the challenges of climate change and are seeking to introduce sustainable development in their operation. An example of this is Transend’s 2009 multipurpose secondary store at its Maria Street campus in Hobart, which was an old building redeveloped to incorporate environmentally sustained features such as reduced energy 473 consumption and utilisation of available natural resources.

9.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving electricity infrastructure include:  Addressing Basslink infrastructure vulnerabilities. With the growing importance of Basslink, addressing the vulnerability of having just one transmission line connecting to the mainland will become more important. The lack of redundancy exposes the State to significant disruption if the transmission line is damaged or shut down.  Ensuring competition given the market structure. A rationale of the original separation of Tasmania’s electricity sector into three organisations was the need to increase competition including by ensuring vertical separation. With the monopoly position of Hydro Tasmania in 129

Energy influencing prices of Basslink, and the vertical integration of Aurora, which now has generation assets as well as a retail business, there is now increased opportunity for markets to not operate competitively. However, there are also significant benefits for vertical integration as it allows the organisations to manage risks. A challenge will be to ensure competition given the changing market structure.  Building secure generation capacity. In the mid 2000s, it appeared likely that Tasmania would experience power shortages and serious environmental damage to its lakes due to excessive water withdrawals for hydro-electric generation. This was averted by using the Bell Bay gas-fired power station and importing power through Basslink. In the short to medium term, Tasmania will have sufficient on-island generation capacity supplemented by imported power via the Basslink interconnector to meet expected demand. It will also have the capacity to export large quantities of low carbon power to the mainland generating significant economic benefit for Tasmania. However, Tasmania faces limitations that over time may affect supply security. Basslink has capacity constraints, and problems in achieving flow reversals. Hydro Tasmania may have challenges due to maintaining energy supply with variable yearly inflows and increasing wind supply, which is also variable. The risk of variable inflows can be mitigated by using alternative electricity sources such as gas-fired generation, imports via Basslink, and wind power. Increasing wind generation as a percentage of total supply can cause network instability risks. However, by pairing this intermittent generation with spinning reserve to provide generation when wind drops, risks can be managed. Hydro power can provide network stability as it can be switched on rapidly under certain conditions. Thus by developing an integrated wind and hydro system, the weaknesses in each can be reduced. For example, the use of pumped water storage can smooth the power fluctuations from wind resulting in a high penetration of wind power for the network. The challenge for Tasmania will be to build secure generation capacity relevant for the next few decades.  Improving the transmission and distribution system. Tasmania’s transmission and distribution systems have known weaknesses that impact on power system security and reliability. These include:  Maintaining adequate voltage levels under various system configurations around the State  Parallel transmission circuits or plant having insufficient or no redundancy, restricting access to plant for system improvements and essential maintenance  The potential loss of double circuit transmission lines in the event of fire, severe lightning and land gales that can have a major impact on the security of the entire power system  The reduction in security of supply on a number of southern 110kV transmission lines during 474 high ambient temperatures.  As both the Tasmanian transmission and distribution systems are regulated, improvements in each will be dependent on determinations by the regulators. The recent determinations that have resulted in moderate electricity price increases will enable many of the immediate constraints on the existing systems to be improved. Over the medium term, the Transend capital program and Aurora Energy’s targeted reliability improvement strategy will result in more customers experiencing a higher level of reliability.  Implementing significant demand management measures. Demand management has significant potential to reduce peak demand. Ways to achieve this include having time-based pricing for electricity consumption and paying large consumers to scale back demand. Tasmania has not pursued demand management due to the shape of the load profile and the 475 lack of smart meters and load control technology installed. The structural and cultural reasons limiting the uptake of demand management will need to be addressed.

130

Electricity

9.5

Report Card Rating Infrastructure Type Electricity

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

B-

C+

B-

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s electricity infrastructure has been rated B-. This rating recognises that Tasmania’s generation system coupled with the interconnector has high supply reliability and security. It also reflects the ongoing improvements that are underway to enhance the quality of the transmission and distribution networks. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  Improvement in the supply reliability of the transmission and distribution networks  Increase in generation diversity  High supply reliability of Tasmania’s generation system. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Basslink’s capacity constraints  Failure of system reliability to meet the new Transmission Electricity Code standards for over 476 30% of communities  Uncertainty about future inflows for hydro-electric reservoirs.

131

Energy

132

Gas

10.1

Summary Infrastructure Type Gas

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

C+

This rating recognises that the assets of the gas sector are of a high quality. However, supply is at risk of major disruption due to the single transmission pipeline, and expansion of the distribution system has stopped. Since 2002, key sector developments have been the:  Availability of natural gas in major urban and industrial areas  Replacement of oil, coal and electricity with natural gas as an energy source for hundreds of industrial enterprises and thousands of residences. Recently completed and in-progress infrastructure initiatives include the:  Completion of the 753km sub-sea gas pipeline connecting Tasmania to the mainland natural gas network  Completion of the 700km gas distribution network throughout Tasmania  Conversion of the oil-fired Bell Bay Power Station (closed in 2009) to natural gas  Construction of the new gas-fired Aurora Energy Tamar Valley (AETV) Power Station  Connection to natural gas supply by nearly 7,000 customers including 500 companies and 50 477 large customers  Commencement of the building of a liquid natural gas (LNG) plant to supply it as truck fuel. Challenges to improving gas infrastructure include:  Expanding the distribution network  Addressing gas infrastructure vulnerabilities.

10.2

Infrastructure overview

10.2.1

System description Gas infrastructure refers to reticulated natural gas infrastructure. Tasmania’s gas infrastructure comprises the following components:  Transmission (734km of pipe)  Distribution (712km of pipe)  Retail companies (two main companies). Tasmania does not produce commercial quantities of natural gas on-island. It sources its gas from Victoria. Exploration for gas is occurring in waters to the north and west of the State, but even if located, it will most likely be processed in Victoria due to that State’s existing natural gas processing infrastructure. Tasmania does not have any significant storage facilities for natural gas, which means that peak gas demand is limited by the pipeline’s capacity. The Report Card does not cover biomass and other fuel gases.

133

Energy Figure 10.1 illustrates the entities and physical flows in the Tasmanian natural gas sector. Supply is provided from the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline. Transmission pipelines carry the gas under high pressure to city gates (also known as gate stations/custody transfer meters) which control and measure the gas flow into the distribution network. The odorant is normally added to make the detection of gas leaks easier. The distribution network takes the gas from the gates and distributes it via high, medium and low pressure pipelines to the customer’s meter/regulator set. The customer pays the retailer for the gas. The retailer buys the gas from suppliers, and pays the transmission y and distribution businesses for transporting the gas. Figure 10.1: Schematic of natural gas entities and physical flows

Injections

Interconnecting pipeline

Withdrawals

Transmission and Distribution Systems

Large Customers

Retail Customers

Retailers

Storages

Transmission Tasmania’s gas transmission infrastructure consists of 734km of onshore and offshore pipelines. Called the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline (TGP), it transports gas predominately from Gippsland Basin via Longford, Victoria. Its current capacity is 47PJ/year (128TJ/day) but it can be increased to 57PJ/year by the addition of compressor stations along the pipeline. TGP’s components are:  Longford to Seaspray, 22km, 350mm diameter  Seaspray to Five Mile Bluff, 324km, 350mm diameter  Five Mile Bluff to Bell Bay, 18km, 350mm diameter  Bell Bay to Ecka, 3km, 168mm and 60mm diameter  Bell Bay to Rosevale, 44km, 219mm diameter  Rosevale to Bridgewater, 164km, 219mm diameter  Rosevale to Gawler main line valve, 93.6km, 168mm diameter 478  Gawler to Australian Bulk Minerals plant (via Port Latta), 87km, 168.3mm diameter. Figure 10.2 shows the main elements of the TGP. The TGP supplies the distribution network and several directly connected customers which are:  Aurora Energy Tamar Valley (AETV) Power Station  ABM Iron Ore Mine processing facility  Comalco Aluminium Smelter 479  BOC’s LNG plant at Westbury (planned to be operation in 2010). The transmission pipeline was completed in 2003 for approximately $440 million by Duke Energy. The pipeline and associated assets are now owned by BBI TGP Pty Ltd, and managed and operated on behalf of the asset owner by Tas Gas Networks.

The charges are known as transmission use of system (TUOS) and distribution use of system (DUOS).

134

Gas Figure 10.2: The Tasmanian Gas Pipeline (TGP)480

Distribution The gas distribution network receives gas from the transmission pipeline off-take stations at Bell 481 Bay, Launceston, Longford, Hobart, Westbury, Devonport, Burnie and Wynyard, and delivers it to customersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meter/regulator sets. Called the Tas Gas Distribution Network, the network consists of a total of 712km of pipes, eight pressure reduction stations, with its steel pipelines operating at 482 pressures up to 5,110kPa and polyethylene pipelines operating at pressures up to 1,000kPa. z The network is owned and operated by Tas Gas Networks, formerly Powerco. Work started on the network in 2003 to coincide with the development of the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline. The Network was built in the following two stages: 483 ď&#x201A;ť Stage 1: Construction of a 100km backbone network to supply 23 large/medium industrial and commercial customers. It was completed in 2005. z

In March 2009, Powerco Tasmania changed its name to Tas Gas Networks. The name change follows the sale of 50% of parent company Powerco Limited by Babcock and Brown Infrastructure (BBI) to the Queensland Investment Corporation.

135

Energy ď&#x201A;ť

484

Stage 2A: Construction of a further 612km of pipes to pass about 38,500 commercial and residential customers around Bell Bay, Longford, Devonport, Burnie, Westbury, Wynyard, 485 Launceston and Hobart. This work was completed in 2007.

The cost of construction for the two stages was about $200 million of which the Tasmanian 486 Government contributed $56 million. The State contribution was justified to make the network commercially viable. With the completion of the stages as agreed to in the distribution development agreement, Tas Gas Networks has switched its focus from construction to providing network aa connection and operational services. In October 2009, about 43,000 homes and businesses have access to gas and some 39 large industrial, 300 commercial and 6,100 domestic consumers are connected. This translates to a 14% connection rate for domestic customers. The 2001 project brief issued by the Tasmanian Government contained a possible residential gas penetration rate of 5% 487 in the networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first year, rising to 47% after 15 years. Tas Gas Networks has stated that there are no plans to extend the network substantially further 488 without financial assistance from the Tasmanian Government. However, individual extension projects will occur for large gas users, such as hotels, if they are commercially viable. One extension being considered is to the Simplot frozen food processing facility at Ulverstone, which will then enable other customers in the town to have access to natural gas. Retail Tasmania has four licensed retailers of natural gas; however, only two are active, Tas Gas Retail (formerly Option One) and Aurora Energy. The number of customers appears in Table 10.1. Table 10.1: Natural gas customer numbers489 2005/06 Distributed to customers (GJ)

747

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

3,379

5,048

6,537

The gas retail market share for Tasmania is displayed in Table 10.2. Table 10.2: Gas retail market share, Tasmania as of 30 June 2008490 Retailer

Total customers

Notes

Tas Gas Retail (formerly Option One)

2,675

85% were residential

Aurora Energy

2,370

96% residential customers, and the remainder small and large businesses

Country Energy

TRUenergy

Demand The total volume of natural gas consumed in Tasmania is small relative to energy consumed from electricity. In 2007/08 some 1,872,547GJ of natural gas was distributed to customers, equivalent to 520.2GWh. Some 10,972GWh of electricity was consumed in the same period, making the natural 491 gas supplied about 5% of the electricity supplied. However, gas consumption is growing significantly as seen in Table 10.3.

The full list of suburbs where gas is available is at Tas Gas, Tas Gas subdivisions webpage, http://www.tasgasnetworks.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=15, accessed 23 November 2009.

136

Gas Table 10.3: Natural gas distribution consumption figures492

Distributed to customers (GJ) Equivalent GWh

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

645,514

989,395

1,872,547

2,192,576

179.3

274.8

520.2

609.0

A key driver for growth is the price difference between gas and electricity. The impact of electricity price rises on gas connection was seen in July 2009. In that month, Aurora’s electricity prices rose 7.2% and this led to a significant jump in demand for gas connections. Tasmania’s natural gas prices are high compared to other States. In the Competition Index 2007– 08 published in December 2008, Tasmania had the highest gas price in all jurisdictions. Victoria 493 has the lowest gas price, followed by New South Wales. In Tasmania, prices paid by residential customers were in the low to mid range for those across Australia, while for businesses, the prices 494 are in the upper range. While gas prices for retail customers are specified in a disclosed tariff, the prices paid by industrial and large commercial customers are negotiated individually. The price agreed upon reflects the capacity reservation requirement, the term of agreement, the annual consumed quantities and the capital costs associated with connection. These agreements and their associated tariffs remain confidential. Some gas take-or-pay contracts can last for up to 30 years, but more commonly last for 10 to 15 years.

10.2.2

Policy and governance The Tasmanian Government’s gas policy objectives include introducing natural gas into the State as a way of diversifying energy sources and ensuring that the natural gas industry that develops is 495 efficient and competitive. The regulatory regime is specifically designed to encourage investment and maintain the financial viability of the natural gas industry, particularly in its early years. The regime also reflects the fact that as natural gas has such small penetration, the gas industry cannot influence prices of the overall energy market and as such, does not need heavy-handed regulation. Tasmania’s gas regulatory regime is a minimal one and its key components are that:  The transmission and the distribution networks operate as an ‘uncovered’ pipeline, i.e. they are not regulated under the National Gas Code, but the threat of subsequent Code coverage will act as a deterrent to inappropriate distribution pricing  There is no State-based regulation of gas distribution and retail prices, as prices are determined 496 by competition from competing fuel sources within the Tasmanian energy market. Most other Australian States more heavily regulate their transmission and distribution networks. Key gas Acts are the:  Gas Act 2000. This Act regulates the distribution and retailing of gas including the licensing of gas distributors and retailers.  Gas Pipelines Act 2000. This Act regulates the construction and operation of gas pipeline facilities, and its subordinate regulations cover the provision of transmission licences and the contents of gas safety cases. The Gas Pipelines Act recognises the Australia-wide National Third Party Access Code for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems which regulates third party access 497 to natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines throughout Australia.

137

Energy Key regulatory documents are:  The Gas Distribution Code. This Code sets the minimum standards for the operation of a distribution system and the terms and conditions under which distribution services are to be provided to gas retail customers.  The Gas Retail Code. This Code establishes the minimum terms on which a retailer must sell gas to small customers.  The Gas Customer Transfer and Reconciliation Code. This Code sets out obligations concerning the provision of information, the customer transfer process, standards for metering 498 and the process for the allocation and reconciliation of gas quantities between retailers. Government agencies relevant to the gas sector are included in the list of agencies in the Electricity section. Planning for new storage, transmission and distribution infrastructure is principally the responsibility of the owners of the infrastructure, rather than the Tasmanian Government. To assist the owners to develop plans, the Australian Energy Market Operator has produced the National Gas Statement of Opportunities (NGSOO). This is an annual document providing demand and supply data so that owners are better able to develop capital investment plans in Tasmania as well as nationally.

10.2.3

Sector trends Growing gas consumption In the short to medium term, the demand for natural gas is likely to increase significantly. Key future growth segments will be:  Gas-powered generators (GPG). GPG plants offer economic standby and peaking power that is most profitable when demand in Tasmania and on the mainland is high. As peak demand periods are likely to increase due to the growing number of high temperature days resulting from climate change, the GPG plants are also likely to operate more frequently.  Co-generation. A number of co-generation developments, which use gas for generating both heat and electricity on-site, have been recently completed or are underway following the provision of gas including the $1.7 million cogeneration plant at the Launceston General bb Hospital and the 2MW cogeneration plant at the Fonterra cheese factory in Wynyard.  Significant industrial and commercial customers. There are still many large and medium sized customers that could use gas, and over time, gas uptake is likely to increase as the price of electricity increases. Large coal consumers and waste oil consumers, of which Tasmania has several, will feel pressure to move to natural gas if a carbon pricing regime is introduced.  Liquefied natural gas users. BOC is currently building a $150 million liquefied natural gas 499 plant at Westbury, which will produce 50 tonnes of LNG a day to be used primarily by trucks. Several LNG distribution stations will also be built across the State and this network will be able to provide sufficient LNG to fuel 120 trucks. The substitution of petrol and diesel for LNG will not only reduce costs but also reduce the environmental impacts of road freight. LNG will become more attractive as the cost of liquid fuel increases and the distribution network improves.  Households. There is considerable potential in connecting households to gas, as currently only 15% of potential households are connected. In Melbourne, some 90% of houses have gas connections for heating and cooking. In the medium term, the price of gas will reflect gas demand developments outside the State with the key ones being:  The future demand for gas by Victoria’s electricity generators. Due to the impact of a carbon pricing regime and RET, GPG will probably increase in Victoria.

Launceston General Hospital used LPG and bunker fuel.

138

Gas 

The development of east coast LNG export markets. The development of an export market in Victoria and on the east coast more broadly will increase gas demand and reduce Victorian reserves more quickly than anticipated.

Growing gas-power generation Natural gas is the energy source for gas-power generation (GPG) plants. Tasmania has two operating GPG plants.  Bell Bay Three has three 95MW gas turbines; this station was commissioned in June 2006.  Aurora Energy Tamar Valley Power Station has one 210MW combined cycle gas turbine, three 500 40MW open cycle gas turbines and one 60MW open cycle gas turbine. In Tasmania, GPG plants are used to supply intermediate and peaking power in times of high demand. However, they are also used when:  Droughts limit the water available for hydro-electric generation  Balancing supply and demand due to exceptional circumstances such as unanticipated generation plant outages or loss of Basslink. The future growth in GPG demand will depend on several factors including the:  Change in relative generation cost between hydro power, coal and gas once a carbon pricing regime comes into effect  Growth in renewable energy if GPG is paired with variable renewable energy capacity to provide firm dispatchable capacity  Expansion of the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline capacity  Ongoing drought conditions.

10.3

Performance

10.3.1

Transmission As the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline is not ‘covered’ by the National Gas Code and hence their performance information is not made public, information on its operations is limited. However, two key performance indicators are reported – interruptions to supply and environmental incidents. During 2008/09, the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline did not report any interruptions to supply nor were 501 there any reportable environmental incidents.

10.3.2

Distribution Tas Gas Networks is required by the Tasmanian Gas Distribution Code to report on a number of technical, complaint and reliability performance measures. In assessing the performance of the gas distributor, it is necessary to consider multi-year trends rather than single years. This is because gas distribution infrastructure is sensitive to environmental conditions, such as heavy rain entering low pressure pipes, and experiences more interruptions during the construction program. The key gas reliability measures are:  System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). SAIDI measures the total number of minutes, on average, that a customer could expect to be without gas over the reporting period. Total SAIDI comprises both planned and unplanned minutes-off-supply.  System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI): SAIFI measures the number of occasions per year when each customer could, on average, expect to experience an interruption. It is calculated as the total number of customer interruptions, divided by the total number of connected customers averaged over the reporting period.  Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI): CAIDI measures the average time taken for supply to be restored to a customer when an interruption has occurred. It is calculated 139

Energy as the sum of the duration of each customer interruption (in minutes), divided by the total 502 number of customer interruptions (SAIDI divided by SAIFI). Reliability is measured in terms of the average frequency and duration of supply interruptions, which can be either planned or unplanned. Planned interruptions occur when a supply is deliberately disconnected to undertake maintenance or construction work. Unplanned interruptions mainly occur because of leakages or damaged pipes requiring immediate repair. Unplanned outages are often caused by third parties damaging pipes, or by water entering low-pressure 503 pipes. There were 115 incidents that resulted in lost or reduced supply in 2007/08 resulting in some 1,725 minutes of supply being lost. The number of incidents is an improvement on previous years as seen in Table 10.4. Key figures are:  SAIDI was 0.38 minutes. For comparison, SAIDI for Victorian gas customers in 2007 was 5.5 504 minutes. 505  SAIFI was 0.007. For comparison, SAIFI for Victorian gas customers in 2007 was 0.023. The distributor met its target of less than 0.5% time off supply. Table 10.4: Natural gas distribution performance506 2005/06 Incidents SAIDI (minutes) SAIFI

232

2006/07

2007/08

141

2008/09

115

7.0

0.25

0.34

0.38

0.27

0.046

0.023

0.007

Total unaccounted-for natural gas lost from the system over the year was 13,248GJ (0.6% of the total volume of natural gas distributed) as seen in Table 10.5. The causes of such losses include leakage, commissioning gas, metering inaccuracies and small variations of temperature, pressure and other parameters. Table 10.5: Natural gas distribution unaccounted gas figures507 2005/06 Unaccounted-for natural gas (%)

0.32

2006/07

There have been no reports over 2008/2009 of odour complaints.

10.3.3

2007/08

0.81

1.44

2008/09 0.6

508

Environmental sustainability Unlike Victoria where gas companies actively promote the environmental benefits of natural gas compared to coal-fired electricity, in Tasmania the advocacy of gas focuses on its cost savings and 509 convenience. However, the retailers note that natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels. The gas sector actively seeks to reduce its environmental risk. Examples of this for the distributor include:  Minimising ground disturbance by using common trenching with other utilities, and directional boring to prevent damage to the root systems of trees  Using long-life materials to minimise the need for future maintenance activities  Minimising line purging operations and, if necessary, using flaring to minimise the environmental impact.

140

Gas

10.4

Future challenges The challenges to improving gas infrastructure are:  Expanding the distribution network. The future direction of gas distribution infrastructure rests with the private sector that owns and operates the transmission and distribution networks. While the Tasmanian Government has subsidised the development of the distribution network in the past, it has indicated that it will not do so further. It now considers that there is sufficient critical mass of customers to enable the natural gas industry to grow organically. As the upfront cost of augmenting or extending the transmission and distribution networks is very high, expansion will only occur when the new provision is profitable. This generally means that expansion will only occur when several large or multiple medium sized businesses agree to take cc gas if the infrastructure is built. Demand from residential areas will generally be insufficient to justify the construction costs. Consequently, unless government support is forthcoming, there is little likelihood that the distribution network will be extended to existing and new residential subdivisions such as Kingborough and Clarence on Hobart’s outskirts.  Addressing gas infrastructure vulnerabilities. With the growing importance of gas in Tasmania, addressing the vulnerability of having just one transmission pipeline supplying gas to the State will become more important. The lack of pipeline redundancy exposes the State to massive disruption if the pipeline is damaged or shut down.

10.5

Report Card Rating Infrastructure Type Gas

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Not rated

C+

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s gas infrastructure has been rated C. This rating recognises that the assets of the gas sector are of a high quality. However, supply is at risk of major disruption due to the single transmission pipeline, and expansion of the distribution system has stopped. Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  The gas sector has been established in Tasmania  The gas transmission and distribution infrastructure is of good quality. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Expansion of the distribution system has stopped  The single transmission pipeline exposes the State to a risk of major disruption.

An example of this were the modifications to the current Bell Bay Meter Station to provide an expanded fuel gas supply to the Tamar Valley Power Station and to meet potential growth in industrial demand for natural gas.

141

Energy

142

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 11.1

Summary Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Telecommunications

C+

Not rated

This rating recognises that fixed telephone services are excellent and mobile phone coverage is generally adequate in major population centres and transport corridors. There is generally sufficient capacity in broadband infrastructure to meet present demand, but utilisation is price-dependent. Broadband demand is rapidly growing and difficult to predict with technological advances and new services. While intrastate backhaul is available, many places are served by only one link, which results in security and pricing issues. Interstate backhaul choice has improved with the commissioning of the Basslink fibre cable. In 2007, Engineers Australia rated telecommunications in the Telecommunications Infrastructure Report Card 2007. It used Local Government Statistical Divisions as the geographic basis for rating fixed and mobile infrastructure, and it did not rate the infrastructure State-wide or rate backhaul infrastructure. Below are its ratings. It is not possible to compare its rating with the one in this chapter due to their different rating methodologies. Statistical Division Name

Fixed Infrastructure Rankings (2007)

Mobile Infrastructure Rankings (2007)

Greater Hobart

Southern

Northern

Mersey-Lyell

Developments since the 2007 Telecommunications Infrastructure Report Card have included:  The creation of a second wholesale telecommunications network in competition to Telstra  The entry of new ISPs to Tasmania following lower priced backhaul  The entry of two addition 3G mobile phone services. Major in-progress infrastructure projects include:  The commissioning of the Basslink backhaul network  The commencement of the rollout of the National Broadband Network Tasmania (NBN Tasmania)  The rollout of ADSL2+ upgrades at Telstra’s exchanges  The installation of ISP owned broadband equipment in exchanges. Challenges to improving telecommunications infrastructure include:  Implementing NBN Tasmania  Balancing market driven telecommunication developments and government intervention to create a competitive telecommunication industry that delivers affordable and widespread access  Generating broadband consumer demand  Utilisation of utility-owned communications infrastructure (especially for backup). 143

Telecommunications

11.2

Infrastructure overview

11.2.1

System description Tasmania’s telecommunications infrastructure consists of infrastructure that delivers customer access networks (CAN) and backhaul transmission networks. The key elements rated in this chapter are:  Fixed line CAN infrastructure  Mobile CAN infrastructure  Backhaul infrastructure. The provision of telecommunications services operates within a market structure comprised of:  Carriers. The owner of a network used to supply carriage services to the public.  Carriage service providers. The organisations that use a carrier service to supply telecommunications services to the public using a carrier-owned network. Internet service providers (ISPs) are carriage service providers.  Content service providers. The organisations that supply radio and TV broadcasting and on-line services to the public. dd

This section does not address satellite telecommunication infrastructure, government radio networks, fixed wireless broadband or content service providers. Private telecommunication systems that have no impact on public telecommunications are also not considered. Table 11.1 lists the infrastructure that this section assesses. Table 11.1: Infrastructure assessed in the Report Card Type

Purpose

Technologies

Customer Access Network (CAN) Fixed line Mobile

Connects customer to an aggregation point

Copper twisted pairs DSL Access Multiplexers (using twisted pairs, possibly in the form of ULL or LSS) Access fibre networks (fibre-to-thepremise/home)

Back haul

Connects aggregation points to major nodes in capital cities or regional centres, and provides high-capacity links between capital cities, or from regional centres to capital cities

Cellular 2G, 2.5G and 3G mobile networks Transmission fibre Fibre trunks Microwave links Satellite links

Fixed line CAN infrastructure The fixed line CAN represents the link between the telephone exchange and the customer. Fixed line infrastructure includes twisted pair copper wire, and fibre-to-the-premise/home, and it provides telephony, data transfer and internet connections. Copper wire is the standard medium for connecting fixed line services to end-user premises. The largest fixed line CAN owner in Tasmania is Telstra.

Satellite phones provide phone services across Australia through satellites orbiting the earth. People living beyond 3G or GSM terrestrial mobile coverage may be eligible for assistance in purchasing satellite mobile phones via the Australian Government’s Satellite Phone Subsidy Scheme. 298 people living in Tasmania took up the subsidy between 2002 and 2009, which equates to 1.9% of the national figure.

144

Telecommunications Mobile CAN infrastructure Mobile CAN infrastructure provides mobile telephone, data and multimedia services to mobile handsets. There are three mobile carriers operating in Tasmania. These networks use either 2G/2.5G or 3G services. 2G/2.5G (henceforth known as GSM) networks in Tasmania are operated by:  Telstra  Optus  Vodafone. 3G networks in Tasmania are operated by:  Telstra’s Next G Network  Optus  Vodafone. The GSM networks were primarily designed for voice services but are capable of supporting data services at a lower rate than 3G networks. The 3G network allows much higher data transfer rates than the GSM networks, allowing consumers to access a wider range of applications. The 3G technology allows carriers to offer a wider range of service to consumers and achieve a more efficient use of spectrum that allows for greater network capacity. 3G networks provide access to data and the internet through either a mobile handset or a data card that is inserted into a computer. The 3G networks can provide peak download speeds of up to 14.4Mbps and upload speeds of up to 1.9Mbps. However, it should be noted that mobile broadband capacity is typically shared amongst multiple simultaneous users and is therefore subject to contention. The growth in mobile phones has been substantial over the last decade as seen in Figure 11.1, which shows that the number of mobile phones exceeded fixed-line phones from 2000. Figure 11.1: Take-up of fixed-line and mobile phones (Australia-wide)510 25

Millions of services

15 Mobile phone Fixed-line phone

0 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 200700 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

While the primary use of mobile phones and other devices is voice, increasingly, non-voice services are providing a greater share of total revenue. The main uses of mobile phones are:  Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS)  Email  Web browsing and other data services  Personal aids include personal digital assistants (PDAs), GPS-enabled navigation and USB drives  Mobile TV and video streaming 511  Mobile commerce, interactive services and location-based services.

145

Telecommunications The growth in mobile broadband speed is significant and likely to accelerate the update of mobile phones for applications that require large amounts of data in near real-time. It is expected that by 512 2012, mobile networks will be capable of speeds of 100Mbits given sufficient bandwidth allocation. Backhaul infrastructure Backhaul infrastructure connects telecommunication aggregation points to major nodes in capital cities or regional centres, and provides high-capacity links between capital cities, or from regional centres to capital cities. Backhaul is provided by fibre or microwave technologies, and while fibrebased infrastructure provides the highest bandwidth, construction is more capital intensive. Until 2009, backhaul services across Bass Strait and on-island were dominated by Telstra. Across 513 Bass Strait, Telstra has two undersea optic fibre cables and back-up microwave links. In mid 2009, a second Bass Strait backhaul service came into operation, the 300km Basslink fibre cable. Other backhaul infrastructure includes:  TasGovNet: This is a 420km optic fibre network which spans from George Town to Hobart and across to Port Latta on the north west coast. The cable is located in the same trench as the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline built in 2003. The Government purchased it from Tas21 Pty Ltd in 2003 for $23.1 million. In 2004, the Tasmanian Government invested a further $7 million to make this backbone cable carrier grade, with an additional 80km of fibre being added and 514 developing points of presence in Burnie, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart. The fibre network has remained essentially inactive, apart from using it to monitor pipeline gas 515 pressures, since it was laid in 2001.  Fibre optic networks and microwave transmission equipment owned by Tasmanian State 516 Owned Electricity Businesses (SOEBs) including Transend Networks. 517  Satellite backhaul. Singtel Optus Pty Limited (Optus) provides this service. The Tasmanian Government in 2010 committed to the construction of additional Bass Strait optic fibre cable within five years.518

11.2.2

Policy and governance The Australian and Tasmanian Governments’ strategic vision for telecommunications are very similar. The vision reflects that while telecommunication can be an enormous contributor to economy, lifestyle, health and safety, telecommunication provision and innovation is primarily driven by market forces. Consequently, governments consider that their major role is to encourage the uptake of telecommunications and the development of telecommunication goods and services. The key to achieving this is a supportive regulatory framework and selective intervention when markets fail to deliver competition or appropriate services. The Tasmanian Government’s vision for digital infrastructure, as defined in the Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy, is:  Digital infrastructure corridors established with power, transport, water infrastructures  System-wide digital infrastructure that underpins health, education, hazard management and other services  High digital literacy and participation across community, business and Government that makes digital infrastructure viable  National Broadband Network in Tasmania that includes fibre connectors to 90% of homes, businesses and schools, and high speed satellite to all other locations.

146

Telecommunications The Tasmanian Government has been attempting to develop more competitive telecommunications provision for most of this decade. Below are key developments.  In 2003, it launched a series of initiatives aimed at facilitating new investment in broadband telecommunications facilities within Tasmania. To implement these initiatives, it established the Telecommunications Infrastructure Steering Committee (TISC).  In December 2003, the Government initiated a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) process aimed at appointing a strategic alliance partner to commercialise the optic fibre backbone installed in the trench beside the Tasmanian Gas Pipeline. TISC was allocated the responsibility to manage the process and make a recommendation to government based on the responses received.  In December 2004, the Government advised respondents to the REOI that it had closed the process and that no immediate prospect existed to engage a strategic partner. However, three respondents were short-listed for future considerations. Following recommendations from TISC, the government approved funding to bring it up to a full carrier grade standard.  In 2005, the Tasmanian Government released the Tasmanian Government Broadband Action Plan which supported the delivery across the State of:  Low cost bandwidth for Tasmania’s information-intensive industries, new economy service sectors, education and health sectors and for research and higher education  A wider choice of competitive telecommunications services to Tasmanian homes, businesses and schools  Openings for new, emerging and niche telecommunications providers to expand and innovate.519  In August 2006, the Government launched a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, again managed by TISC, in a second attempt to seek a strategic alliance to commercialise the State’s optic fibre backbone. This process offered a combined network comprising the on-island backbone and the Basslink undersea cable under a non-binding agreement with Basslink Pty Ltd.  In March 2007, TISC convened an evaluation panel to conduct a detailed assessment of the submitted responses and the assessment process was completed in June 2007.  In December 2007, CitySpring (the new owner of the Basslink assets and associated service contracts) advised the Tasmanian Government that it had chosen to commercialise its optic fibre cable separately from the on-island backbone.  On 22 December 2007, the Tasmanian Treasurer announced that Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora) had been appointed as the Strategic Partner to commercialise the on-island backbone optic fibre network.  In 2009, the Government made a $12.7 million equity contribution to Aurora Energy for its fibre optic network. The Tasmanian Government’s recent initiatives designed to increase telecommunication usage include:  In 2009, allocating $1 million to support the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre for three years  In 2009, establishing the Tasmanian Broadband Development Program (TBDP) that aims to increase affordable access to broadband for all Tasmanians and help position the State as a strong participant in the digital economy  In 2009, forming the Digital Futures Advisory Committee to identify opportunities associated 520 with the NBN. Australia’s telecommunications industry is subject to a regulatory framework defined by the Telecommunications Act 1997. Its core aim is to promote the long-term interests of end-users of telecommunications services.

147

Telecommunications The framework relies on industry self-regulation to develop codes and standards in all areas that apply to the sector. However, Government regulators have powers to intervene if industry selfregulation is not working effectively in specific instances. The key types of framework documents developed under self-regulation are:  Industry Codes that are rules or guidelines governing particular aspects of telecommunications, developed by industry  Industry Standards that are rules or guidelines similar to industry codes, but determined by the ACMA  Technical Standards that cover the technical parameters of customer equipment, such as 521 cables and networks. Two other key elements of the regulatory framework are the:  Telecommunications (Consumer Protections and Service Standards) Act 1999 that legislates a number of consumer protection matters, particularly the Universal Service Regime, the National Relay Service, and continued access to untimed local calls  Trade Practices Act 1974 that includes two telecommunications-specific parts, Parts XIB and XIC, covering anti-competitive conduct provisions and a telecommunications-specific access ee regime respectively. The radio spectrum framework is defined in the Radiocommunications Act 1992 that sets out the tools to manage the spectrum including frequency planning, licensing and technical standards. In September 2009, the Australian Government announced that it would be making major telecommunication reforms as the existing telecommunications anti-competitive conduct and access regimes are cumbersome, open to gaming and abuse, and provide insufficient certainty for investment. The proposed reforms involve:  A structural separation of Telstra that primarily involves separating the network operations/wholesale functions from the retail functions  Streamlining the competition regime to provide more certain and quicker outcomes for telecommunications companies  Strengthening consumer safeguards, notably the Universal Service Obligation, Customer Service Guarantee and Priority Assistance  Removing redundant and inefficient regulatory red tape. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 exempts low-impact and certain other ff telecommunications facilities from most planning requirements under State legislation. However, for other facilities, State and local government planning schemes apply. In Tasmania, there are no overall guidelines that local governments apply in their planning decisions for telecommunications facilities. In 2008, less than 25% of local governments have documented guidelines and principles for evaluating telecommunications infrastructure developments, and for those that do, there is little consistency amongst them. Work is underway to develop standardised telecommunications planning and development guidelines, starting with an audit of local government planning 522 schemes. Key multi-jurisdictional bodies and government agencies are:  Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) (Australian Government). The DBCDE has a leading role in outlining the strategic direction of the telecommunications sector, and providing advice on all regulatory policy aspects of the ee

The access rules under this legislation provide a framework for determining the services to which content service providers have a right to access for the purpose of providing their own competing services, and the cost at which such services will be provided to them. ff These facilities are described in the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997, and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

148

Telecommunications



telecommunications and radiocommunications sectors. Its Telecommunications Industry Division also provides advice on legislative and administrative arrangements for Telstra and Australia Post. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA is a regulator of the Australian communications industry, with specific responsibilities for the regulation of broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications and telecommunications consumer and technical matters. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC regulates competition in the telecommunications industry with specific responsibilities for the administration of regulation of anti-competitive conduct, and the approval and arbitration of access codes developed by the industry. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) (Australian Government). The TIO provides an independent dispute resolution forum for complaints made by residential and small business consumers of telecommunications services. The TIO is funded through charges levied on carriers and service providers on the basis of complaints received against them. Communications Alliance Ltd. The Communications Alliance is the peak communications industry body and has primary responsibility for developing technical, operational and consumer 523 industry codes and standards for the industry. Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts (Tasmanian Government). The Department has a major role in bringing competitive broadband to Tasmania in order to advance the State’s economic strength and improve services to residential and commercial users. The Department has a number of initiatives under the Tasmanian Broadband Development Program (TBDP). This program aims to stimulate competitive backbone infrastructure developments and increase awareness of the benefits of broadband.

The Tasmanian Government’s group responsible for the management of its own telecommunication needs is the Telecommunications Management Division (TMD) of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Tasmanian Government has a whole-of-government approach to telecommunications purchasing in which the TMD sources and in some cases 524 provides, telecommunications services for use by all Government agencies. The TMD manages the Networking Tasmania (NTII) initiative which is the outsourced, integrated, data communications 525 network for the Tasmanian Government. The Inter Agency Policy and Projects Unit (IAPPU), Department of Premier and Cabinet is responsible for the coordination, development and implementation of whole-of-government information systems, telecommunications and information management strategies and policies aimed at improving and modernising the operations of 526 government in Tasmania. The IAPPU published the 2004 Tasmanian Government Broadband Action Plan.

11.2.3

Sector trends Increased competition in telecommunication wholesale services The Tasmanian Government had recognised that the lack of competition in telecommunication wholesale provision resulted in high prices that retarded economic development and the uptake of telecommunication services. Telstra dominated the market as it owned or controlled 90% of all 527 telecommunications infrastructure in the State. Examples of high prices in 2008 were:  The price of backhaul services across Bass Strait was around $800-$1,000 per megabyte per second per month while the link between Launceston and Hobart the price was around $2,000 528 per megabyte per second per month.  Bass Strait backhaul rates to transfer data between Tasmania and Victoria was more expensive 529 than it was to move data between Australia and the US.

149

Telecommunications The high costs were one of the contributing factors that resulted in Tasmania having the lowest proportion of households with broadband of any State or Territory. As of June 2009, only 49% of 530 the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population had broadband compared to the Australian average of 62%. The Government has addressed this problem by supporting the development of the Basslink fibre optic cable and facilitating Auroraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high-speed wholesale telecommunications network that utilises both TasGovNet fibre backbone and its own fibre assets. In 2008, Aurora Energy and Basslink signed a contract under which they will develop a broadband service to Tasmania. The assets involved in this network are illustrated in Figure 11.2. This network provides a second high-speed wholesale telecommunications network in parts of Tasmania, which introduces competition to wholesale provision. Figure 11.2: Infrastructure comprising the Aurora Energy/Basslink wholesale telecommunication network531

Growth in broadband uptake Broadband is a class of data transmission technologies, including optic-fibre (FTTx), xDSL (such as 532 ADSL, ADSL2+ and VDSL), HFC cable and wireless (such as WiMAX, HSPA and LTE). Broadband speed is continuing to increase with the faster speeds being delivered by fixed line followed by wireless networks. Figure 11.3 illustrates the speed comparisons for different broadband technologies.

150

Telecommunications Figure 11.3: Digital data speed comparison533

100

Digital Data Speed Mbps

90 NBN Fibre connection to 90% of Australia

80 70 60 50 40

NBN wireless and satellite connection to 10% of Australia

30 20

Digital Data Service Obligation

ADSL2+ ADSL2

Broadband Technologies

The combination of increased speed and increased demand has resulted in continual growth in broadband connections. Figure 11.4 displays Tasmaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s uptake of ISP subscriptions since 2006. Figure 11.4: Total ISP subscriptions534

Total ISP Subscriptions ('000)

200 180 160 140 120 100

Tas

80 60 40 20 0 Jun-09

Apr-09

Feb-09

Dec-08

Oct-08

Aug-08

Jun-08

Apr-08

Feb-08

Dec-07

Oct-07

Aug-07

Jun-07

Apr-07

Feb-07

Dec-06

Oct-06

Aug-06

Jun-06

The percentage of connections using different broadband technologies Australia-wide is shown in Figure 11.5. Figure 11.5: Type of broadband connection535

Don't know , 12% Wireless, 12% Satellite, 1% Cable, 19%

DSL/ADSL, 56%

151

Telecommunications The past growth in broadband is expected to continue. The availability of reasonably-priced fourth generation (4G) cellular and other wireless telecommunication technology and the rollout of the NBN will accelerate this. Rollout of Government broadband infrastructure In response to the increasing demand for high-speed broadband services, and need to provide broadband services in regional and other areas with limited access, the Australian Government has initiated a number of projects to develop broadband networks. National Broadband Network In early 2009, the Australian Government announced that it would be building the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN aims to connect 90% of Australian homes, schools and workplaces with 100Mbps broadband services through fibre to the premise connections. The remaining 10% will be provided with 12Mbps wireless and satellite broadband services. The network will be built and operated by NBN Co, a new company specifically established by the Australian Government for the project. Investment in the company will, according to preliminary estimates, total up to $43 billion over eight years. Funding for NBN Co will come primarily from the Australian Government, through the Building Australia Fund, which will be the majority shareholder. The Australian Government expects private sector investment in the company through the issuing of Aussie Infrastructure Bonds (AIBs). The Australian Government intends to sell down its interest in NBN Co after the network is built and fully operational. The Australian Government claims that the NBN will create a complete separation between the broadband infrastructure provider and the retail service providers. This separation is expected to lead to greater retail competition and lower prices. Fibre in Greenfield Estates The Australian Government has announced that all greenfield estates that receive planning approval after 1 July 2010 will require fibre-to-the-premise infrastructure. This initiative is designed to ensure that homes built in new developments or major redevelopments are connected via fibre infrastructure. In December 2009, the Australian Government released an exposure draft of a bill to gg implement the changes. NBN developments in Tasmania The rollout of the NBN in Tasmania is being progressed via the Tasmanian National Broadband Network Company (NBN Tasmania). NBN Tasmania is owned by the Australian and Tasmanian Governments. Aurora Energy is supporting the venture with NBN Tasmania through its physical 536 telecommunications assets. Aurora Energy assets that are being used by NBN Tasmania include its: 537  Cambridge data centre, which will be used as the NBN Tasmania nerve centre  Managed and owned optical fibre assets, including the TasGovNet optical fibre backbone  Contractual processes for managing of NBN construction contracts. The rollout of the Tasmanian section of the NBN will consist of the existing optical fibre network being extended over a period of five years to connect approximately 200,000 premises throughout the State. The first stage of the extension is due for completion in 2010 and will extend optical fibre from: gg

The proposed Act is called Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Act 2010. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Fibre in Greenfields Estate webpage, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/fibre_in_greenfield_estates, accessed 4 January 2009.

152

Telecommunications Cambridge via Midway Point to Triabunna Port Latta to Smithton 538  George Town via Scottsdale to St Helens.  

The contract to install the 292km backhaul fibre for this stage was awarded to Corning Cable 539 Systems Pty Ltd in October 2009. The first three towns to receive fibre-to-the premise will be 540 Midway Point, Smithton and Scottsdale. Cable will pass or connect to 5,000 homes in these towns by mid-2010. The first stage elements are identified in Figure 11.6. Towns to be connected in Stage 2 of the rollout include St Helens, Triabunna, Deloraine, Sorell, George Town, Kingston 541 Beach and South Hobart. At the time of writing, Stage 3 design work was underway to supply cable to 40,000 premises in Hobart, 30,000 in Launceston and 10,000 in each of Burnie and Devonport.542 Figure 11.6: The NBN Tasmania rollout543

The NBN Tasmania’s physical installation of the fibre involves both overhead and underground deployment, and bringing a fibre to a box installed under the premises’ eaves, called the build-drop. Initially, if the customer wants the build-drop, it will be provided free when the cables are rolled out down the street. A fee may apply if the connection is requested a later date. It will be up to the customer to then organise with an ISP or another telecommunication service provider to have the premises wired and connected to the build-drop fibre.

11.3

Performance

11.3.1

Fixed line CAN infrastructure performance Fixed line telephone provision is universal as it is a requirement for Telstra, under the Australian Government’s Universal Service Obligation (USO), to ensure that standard telephone services are

153

Telecommunications hh

reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis. The cost of supplying lossmaking services that are required to fulfil the USO is shared among all carriers. ACMA’s surveys identify that the majority of Australians are largely satisfied with their fixed-line service. As seen in Table 11.2, over 80% of people stated that their fixed line phone service met or 544 exceeded their expectations. This perception did not appear to differ by the caller’s location or the call’s destination. Table 11.2: Household consumer satisfaction with fixed-line service providers by location Australia-wide, January– June 2008545 Service provider type Consumer opinion

Local Metro

Long distance

Non-metro

Metro

International

Non-metro

Metro

Non-metro

Exceeded my expectations

Mostly met my expectations

73%

74%

75%

73%

Sometimes met my expectations

14%

13%

15%

12%

15%

13%

Rarely met my expectations

Figure 11.7 identifies the nature of complaints relating to fixed lines. Figure 11.7: Fixed line complaints Australia-wide, 2008/09546 4%

Customer service

20%

Billing and payments Faults

Complaint handling Provisioning 7%

Contracts 25%

Credit management Customer transfers

15% 10%

Others

Evaluating the performance of broadband involves assessing the grade and quality of services. This normally involves assessing not only infrastructure issues, such as coverage and capacity, but also market issues such as pricing and packages offered. However, the Report Card focuses on infrastructure issues and, while making comments on the existence of multiple broadband infrastructure providers in a market, does not rate the affordability of broadband. Determining the coverage and capacity of broadband provision is very difficult using publicallyavailable information. Public information is often insufficiently detailed to provide an accurate picture. For instance, while ADSL coverage maps are available, these tend to overstate the ADSL coverage area, as the shaded areas assume that the exchange results in the entire telephone exchange area are receiving ADSL services. In reality, ADSL performance reduces the further away from the exchange, and during periods of high traffic demand. The majority of broadband connections are provided by copper wire fixed lines. About 70% of broadband connections are DSL, and the most common form is asynchronous DSL (ADSL). ADSL 547 uses Telstra’s copper phone network to connect to the home from exchanges.

The details of Telstra’s fulfilling its obligations as universal service provider is contained in the Telstra policy statement and marketing plan approved by ACMA. These are available from http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/commitments/uso.cfm.

154

Telecommunications In 2006, there were 205 exchange distribution areas across Tasmania of which 136 provided 548 ADSL. In September 2009, Telstra provided ADSL services to 92% of the population through 549 134 telephone exchanges, and ADSL2+ to 88% of the population. Several ISPs have also invested in deployment of broadband infrastructure in Tasmania including installing DSLAMs (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer). It is important to note that some premises within an exchange service area may not be able to access DSL because they are:  Located too far from an exchange, as the quality of DSL decreases with distance  Have a technology problem such as having a large pair gain system (LPGS) already on their 550 line, which results in no additional capacity being available. Figure 11.8 shows the physical ADSL-enabled exchanges in Tasmania. Figure 11.8: ADSL-enabled exchanges in Tasmania (red signifies ADSL1 and green ASDL 2+ exchanges)

551

Upgrading of exchanges is continuously occurring and details of the availability of ADSL ports in exchanges are available from Telstra Wholesale at http://telstrawholesale.com/products/data/adsl-reports-plans.htm and on ADSl2exchanges.com.au.

Due to the mountainous terrain and their remote locations, some towns are not connected via fibre optic to a fixed line network. These areas are served by radio transmission, which supports basic mobile and ADSL services, but not high speed transmission. These towns include:  Queenstown, Savage River, Strahan, Zeehan, Rosebery, Waratah, Tullah, Bronte Park, Hermitage, Maydena and Miena on the west coast 552  Blessington in northern Tasmania. Telstra estimated that the cost of providing fibre to these communities will be $45.2 million.

553

There are over 185 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) providing services to Tasmania for business 554 and residences, with 138 of these also being broadband ISPs.

155

Telecommunications 11.3.2

Mobile CAN infrastructure performance GSM coverage for Tasmania by network providers is by Telstra, Vodafone and Optus. All three GSM networks cover the main population centres and some highways. However, Telstra has the broadest coverage. 3G coverage for Tasmania by network providers is by:  Telstra, which provides services to 97% of the population via its base stations, covering more 555 than 55% of the State’s land mass (September 2009)  Vodafone, which provides coverage to Hobart and surrounds, Launceston, Wynyard, 556 Devonport, Ulverstone, Exeter, Ross, Burnie and Deloraine  Optus, which provides services to Hobart and surrounds, the Midlands Highway to Launceston and surrounds and the Bass Highway to Smithton. For 3G, Telstra’s services are most extensive. The other networks provide coverage along major 557 corridors and cities. Optus plans to expand its coverage to that of Telstra’s current coverage. Figure 11.9 identifies the number and type of complaints for mobile phones. Of the complaints, 13,056 were relating to faults in the mobile network. With the introduction of the 3G services, the number of complaints has fallen significantly. Figure 11.9: Mobile complaints issued by category,2008/09558

10%

1% 1%

Customer service

20%

Billing and payments Faults

16%

Complaint handling Provisioning Contracts

1% 26% 14%

Credit management Customer transfers

11%

Others

There are numerous areas of poor coverage in Tasmania due to its topography and population distribution.

11.3.3

Backhaul infrastructure In assessing backhaul, it is necessary to identify if there is at least a single backhaul link and if there is more than one backhaul link. A single backhaul link is obviously necessary to provide high speed connectivity between areas. More than one backhaul link is normally required to provide competition, for without it, the monopoly supplier will exploit their power and charge high access rates. Additional backhaul links also provide redundancy so that if one is cut, typically by a backhoe, then communication can be rerouted preventing telecommunication loss. Tasmanian telecommunication services are connected to the mainland through three backhaul 559 cables across Bass Strait. Following the introduction of competition in the provision of backhaul across Bass Strait, the prices of backhaul have reduced substantially. This has seen an increase in the provision of telecommunication services in Tasmania such as the ISP Internode. In May 2008, Internode suspended sales in Tasmania of a certain class of broadband plan due to unaffordable backhaul capacity across Bass Strait. Months later, it resumed sales in anticipation of the completion of the 560 Basslink fibre connection. In June 2009, Internode announced that it had contracted with

156

Telecommunications Basslink for the supply of backhaul services of 622Mbps across Bass Strait, ‘virtually halving the 561 cost of data backhaul across Bass Strait’. Internode is also providing redundancy for the Basslink 562 network management system via its leased capacity on the Telstra network. There are several fibre cables along the north-south axis and along the east-west axis in northwest Tasmania, which provides redundancy if a line is cut. However, in other areas there are only single fibre cables. As well as security vulnerabilities, single cables result in a lack of competition, leading to high broadband prices.

11.4

Future challenges The challenges to achieving improvements in infrastructure are:  Implementing NBN Tasmania. The NBN rollout in Tasmania depends on a series of decisions yet to be made including which assets will be allocated to the NBN Tasmania, the wholesale rates and the construction schedule.  Balancing market-driven telecommunication developments and government intervention to create a competitive telecommunication industry that delivers affordable and widespread access. Telecommunication infrastructure investment decisions are made by telecommunication providers on the basis of market decisions, and/or the ability to access government subsidies. Consequently, areas of good financial returns have better telecommunication capabilities than other areas. Areas that are served by a single provider generally experience higher prices and lower quality services than areas with competitive provision. Therefore, for social and economic reasons, improved services are required for under-served areas. This invariably requires some form of government intervention. Certain difficult-to-access areas of Tasmania are not served by fibre and are unlikely to be served by commercial players, thus government subsidy to these areas will be required.  Generating broadband consumer demand. Broadband usage in Tasmania is lower than in other States. Increasing demand will have benefits for users as well as allowing increased investment in infrastructure.  Utilisation of utility-owned communications infrastructure (especially for backup). Several Tasmanian Government-owned enterprises have considerable fibre and other communication assets. An example is Transend Network’s fibre link to the west coast. This infrastructure could be utilised more effectively.

11.5

Report Card Rating Infrastructure Type

Tasmania 2010

Tasmania 2005

National 2005

National 2001

Telecommunications

C+

Not rated

Based on considerations of planning, funding, and infrastructure capacity and condition, Tasmania’s telecommunication infrastructure has been rated C+. This rating recognises that fixed telephone services are excellent and mobile phone coverage is generally adequate in major population centres and transport corridors. There is generally sufficient capacity in broadband infrastructure to meet present demand, but utilisation is price dependent. Broadband demand is rapidly growing and difficult to predict with technological advances and new services. While intrastate backhaul is available, many places are served by only one link, resulting in security and pricing issues. Interstate backhaul choice has improved with the commissioning of the Basslink fibre cable.

157

Telecommunications Positives that have contributed to the rating are:  The planning and funding of NBN Tasmania rollout  Creation of a second wholesale telecommunications network in competition with Telstra  Entry of new ISPs and 3G mobile phone service providers. Negatives that have contributed to the rating are:  Lack of certainty about the reach and timing of NBN Tasmania rollout  Some areas of poor coverage in Tasmania due to its topography and population distribution  Lack of utilisation of existing government telecommunication assets.

158

APPENDICES

159

Appendix A: Rating methodology The rating methodology is designed to provide a standardised approach to developing evidencebased rating of infrastructure that is credible, defendable, and explainable. The Report Card’s rating scheme is predicated on the principle that infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance are optimal if the infrastructure meets the current and future needs of the community, economy and environment in terms of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity. The infrastructure rating principles are based on the view that: 1. Infrastructure needs to be optimised in a systems context that requires:  Complementarity in national, State/Territory and local government decisions  Best-practice governance arrangements across the infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance activities  Competitive and efficient markets (which includes infrastructure reflecting the true cost of provision, including externality costs and benefits)  A minimum set of sector legislation, regulation and standards  The efficient use of existing infrastructure and resources (requires long-term focus on maintenance, renewals and demand management)  A sustainability approach, which gives due regard to economic, social and environmental factors  Planning that is based on data, evidence and informed decision-makers working in partnership with stakeholders. 2. Infrastructure should be planned, designed, built, operated and maintained in a sustainable, cost-effective, efficient and equitable manner over its life-cycle, which is typically 30 to 100 years depending on the infrastructure. 3. Decisions on infrastructure need to recognise that it both shapes and is shaped by the social, economic and environmental objectives set by the community. 4. Infrastructure decisions should balance the costs and benefits on the economy, society and environment by simultaneously optimising the following objectives:  Economic growth, efficiency and effectiveness  Health, safety and security  Access and social justice  Environmental responsibility  Liveability, connectivity and amenity. 5. Infrastructure should be provided by both the public and private sectors to optimise taxpayer and infrastructure stakeholder best value. 6. Governments and infrastructure organisations should have the relevant skills to effectively oversee the provision of infrastructure, whether the actual infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance are done by the public or private sector. 7. Infrastructure decisions should reflect current and anticipated challenges, such as demographic shifts, ageing, climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and resilience. 8. Infrastructure decisions should be accountable and transparent.

Rating scheme The rating scheme is based on a cascading structure that details, at various levels of granularity, the key elements deemed to be essential to optimal infrastructure policy, regulation, planning, provision, operation and maintenance.

160

Appendix A: Rating methodology The scheme has two high level Categories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; future infrastructure and existing infrastructure. For each of these, there are three Components, which further divide into Element Blocks and finally Foundation Elements. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Rating scale Ratings given are based on the scale in the table below: Table: Rating scale Letter grade

Designation

Definition*

Very good

Infrastructure is fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Good

Minor changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Adequate

Major changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Poor

Critical changes are required to enable infrastructure to be fit for its current and anticipated future purposes

Inadequate

Inadequate for current and anticipated future purposes

* Defined as infrastructure meeting the current and future needs of the community, economy and environment in terms of sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

161

Appendix B: Units and acronyms Units J

Joule, a unit of energy

Watt (1W = 1 joule/second), a unit of power

watt-hour (1Wh = 3600J), a unit of electricity energy

Volt, a unit of voltage

Litre, a unit of volume

Prefixes

162

milli, meaning 10-3

kilo, meaning 103 (thousand)

mega, meaning 106 (million)

giga, meaning 109 (billion)

tera, meaning 1012 (trillion)

peta, meaning 1015 (quadrillion)

AAV

Assessed annual value

ACA

Australian Communications Authority

ACCC

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

AEMC

Australian Energy Market Commission

AEMO

Australian Energy Market Operator

AER

Australian Energy Regulator

AETV

Aurora Energy Tamar Valley

AGO

Australian Greenhouse Office

AIBs

Aussie Infrastructure Bonds

BAMP

Bridge Asset Management Plan

BITRE

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics

CAIDI

Customer Average Interruption Duration Index

CAN

Customer access networks

CBD

Central Business District

COAG

Council of Australian Governments

DBCDE

Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

Direct current

DIER

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources

DITRDLG

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, formally DOTARS

DPIPWE

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EMS

Environmental Management System

EPAT

Environment Protection Authority Tasmania

ESOO

Electricity Statement of Opportunities

FTTN

Fibre to the Node

GPG

Gas-powered generators

Gigawatts

HMLV

Higher Mass Limit Vehicles

HPV

High Productivity Vehicles

IAPPU

Inter Agency Policy and Projects Unit

IRI

International Roughness Index

ISPs

Internet service providers

ITS

Intelligent Transport Systems

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas

Appendix B: Units and acronyms LOS

Loss of supply

LPG

Liquid Petroleum Gas

LRC

Low reserve condition

MAIFI

Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index

MMS

Multimedia Message Service

MRET

Mandated Renewable Energy Target (scheme)

Megawatts

NBN

National Broadband Network

NEM

National Electricity Market

NGSOO

National Gas Statement of Opportunities

NTC

National Transport Commission

NTNDP

National Transmission Network Development Plan

NTNDP

Network Development Plan

NTS

National Transmission Statement

NWC

National Water Commission

NWI

National Water Initiative

OTTER

Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator

PCBs

Polychlorinated biphenyls

PDAs

personal digital assistants

Photovoltaic

REOI

Request for Expressions of Interest

RFP

Request for Proposal

SAIDI

System Average Interruption Duration Index

SAIFI

System Average Interruption Frequency Index

SMS

Short Message Service

SOEB

State Owned Electricity Business

TBDP

Tasmanian Broadband Development Program

TEFF

Tasmanian Environmental Flows Framework

TEU

Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (container)

TGP

Tasmanian Gas Pipeline

TIO.

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

TISC.

Telecommunications Infrastructure Steering Committee

TMD

Telecommunications Management Division

USE

Unserved energy

USO

Universal service obligation

WSAA

Water Services Association of Australia

WSC

Water and Sewerage Corporations

WST

Workplace Standards Tasmania

163

Appendix C: Glossary Roads Maintenance: Pavement maintenance can be divided into the following classes:  Routine maintenance which is reactive, addressing minor defects. This includes fixing potholes and rough patches on the pavement. Cost is about $0.30 per square metre.  Periodic maintenance to resurface and reseal the pavement to prevent water infiltrating the pavement structure, to address some aspects of surface roughness and to improve the traction of the pavement surface. Cost is between $4.50 and $20 per square metre.  Rehabilitation which involves a more significant treatment to improve the structural condition of the pavement and bring the surface back to within an acceptable level of roughness and traction at a cost of between $35.00 and $100.00 per square metre.563 Road infrastructure: Road infrastructure consists of:  The road pavement—the structure that carries traffic  Other structures—bridges, pathways, barriers, walls  Roadside assets—including engineering features such as traffic signs and guideposts, cuttings and embankments, and environmental features such as vegetated areas situated within the boundaries of the road reserve  Roadside traffic signs—which regulate speed, warn of hazards and provide information  Pavement markings—designating the edges of the road and traffic lanes, and providing directional and warning information.564

Rail Above rail: Those activities required to provide and operate train services such as rolling stock provision (i.e. trains, carriages), rolling stock maintenance, train crewing, terminal provision, freight handling and the marketing and administration of the above services. Below rail: Those activities associated with the provision and management of rail infrastructure, including the construction, maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure assets, and the network management services required for the safe operation of train services on the rail infrastructure, including train control services and the implementation of safe working procedures. Narrow gauge: The distance of 1,067mm (3’6”) between two rails. Rail infrastructure: Consists of both above and below rail infrastructure.

Ports Berth: The wharf space at which a ship docks. A wharf may have two or three berths, depending on the length of incoming ships. Break Bulk Cargo: Cargo that is not containerised, e.g. timber, paper, steel, vehicles, vehicle components. Common-User Facility: A port facility not dedicated to a particular use, and available for short-term hire. Container: A metal container designed for cargo transport. Most containers are either 20 feet (six metres) or 40 feet (twelve metres) long and referred to as 20 TEU or 40 TEU respectively. Container terminal: A specialised facility where ocean container vessels dock to discharge and load containers. Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT): Maximum weight of a vessel including the vessel, cargo and ballast. Pilot: A licensed navigational guide with thorough knowledge of a particular section of a waterway, whose occupation is to steer ships along a coast or into and out of a harbour. Local pilots board the ship to advise the captain and navigator of local navigation conditions. Stevedores: Labour management companies that provide equipment and hire workers to transfer cargo between ships and docks. Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU): A unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard twenty foot container.

Airports Aeronautical uses: The use of an airport for aviation-related purposes, including aircraft movements and maintenance and any facilities at an airport enabling people to travel. Airport Master Plan: Airport Master Plans are a requirement of the Airport Acts 1996 and are prepared by major Australian airports every five years to provide a clear direction for the growth and development of the airport. Airport Operator: The airport lessee or owner.

164

Appendix C: Glossary Curfew: A restriction on flights that can take off or land from specified airports at designated times. General aviation: All civil operations other than Regular Public Transport operations. Leased federal airports: The 21 Australian airports covered by the Airports Act 1996 where the Airport Operators lease the airport land from the Australian Government. Non-aeronautical developments: Non-aviation commercial developments, such as retail outlets and office buildings, on airport sites. Regular Public Transport operation (RPT): An operation of an aircraft for the purposes of an air service that is provided for a fee payable by persons using the service, is conducted in accordance with fixed schedules to or from fixed terminals over specific routes, and is available to the general public on a regular basis (synonymous with ‘scheduled services’).

Electricity Contingency events: Events that affect the power system’s operation. Their categories are:  Credible contingency events, events whose occurrence is considered ‘reasonably possible’ in the circumstances. For example, the unexpected disconnection or unplanned reduction in capacity of one operating generating unit, or the unexpected disconnection of one major item of a transmission plant.  Non-credible contingency event, events whose occurrence is not considered ‘reasonably possible’ in the circumstances. Typically, a non-credible contingency event involves simultaneous multiple disruptions, such as the failure of several generating units at the same time. Demand-side management (DSM): The planning, implementation and monitoring of utility activities designed to encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing and level of electricity demand. Generator – Baseload and peaking: Baseload generators provide the continuous ongoing electricity supply while peaking generators provide supplemental power to meet energy demand peaks. Interconnector: Transmission line/s that connect transmission networks in adjacent regions. Load shedding: Reducing or disconnecting load from the power system either by automatic control systems or under instructions from the AEMO. Reliability of supply: The likelihood of having sufficient capacity (generation or demand-side response) to meet demand. Reliability Standard: The requirement that there is sufficient generation and bulk transmission capacity so that, over the long term, no more than 0.002% of the annual energy of consumers in any region is at risk of not being supplied, i.e. the maximum USE is 0.002%. Unserved energy (USE): The amount of energy that cannot be supplied because there are insufficient supplies (generation) to meet demand.

Gas Linepack: Gas maintained in a gas transmission line to maintain pressure but also used as a buffer to provide an uninterrupted flow of gas to customers. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG): Natural gas that has been converted temporarily for ease of storage or transport. LNG takes up about 1/600th the volume of natural gas in the gaseous state. Natural gas: Gaseous fossil fuel consisting primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, butane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulphide. Unaccounted-for gas (UAFG): The difference between metered injected gas supply and metered and allocated gas at delivery points. UAFG comprises gas losses, metering errors, timing, heating value error, allocation error and other factors.

Water Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP): The statistical likelihood of occurrence of a flood of a given size or larger in any one year, usually expressed as a percentage. Carrier: A conduit for the supply or drainage of water. The key types are lined channel (an earthen channel lined with a low permeability material), unlined channel (an earthen open channel without internal lining), natural waterway (a stream or other naturally-formed watercourse), and pipe (a closed conveyance or carrier regardless of material, size or shape, that conveys water, typically for supply service). Catchment: An area of land where run-off from rainfall goes into one river system. Consumptive use: The use of water for private benefit consumptive purposes including irrigation, industry, urban, stock and domestic use. Effluent: Treated sewage that flows out of a sewage treatment plant. Greywater: Water from the kitchen, laundry and bathroom. It does not include toilet waste. Headworks: Dams, weirs and associated works used for the harvest and supply of water. Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water: Recycled water used as a source of potable water, typically by injecting it into a water reservoir.

165

Appendix C: Glossary Integrated urban water cycle management: The integrated management of all water sources so that water is used optimally within a catchment resource, in a state and national policy context. This approach promotes coordinated planning, sustainable development and management of the water, land and related resources linked to urban areas, and the application of water sensitive urban design principles. Irrigation: The artificial application of water to land for the purpose of agricultural production. Potable: Suitable for drinking. Recycled water: Water derived from sewerage systems or industry processes, treated to a standard appropriate for its intended use. Reticulation: The network of pipelines used to take water into areas of consumption; includes residential districts and individual households. Run-off: Precipitation or rainfall that flows from a catchment into streams, lakes, rivers or reservoirs. Sewage: The waste and wastewater discharged into sewers from homes and industry. Sewerage: Infrastructure system for the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage. Stormwater: Rainfall that runs off roofs, roads and other surfaces where it flows into gutters, streams, rivers and creeks or is harvested. Third pipe systems: A reticulated pipe network that distributes recycled water for use in gardens, etc. Trade waste: Industrial and commercial liquid waste discharged into the sewerage system. Urban runoff: Water deposited by storms or other sources that passes through stormwater drains or is harvested. Urban runoff may contain substantial level of pollutants such as solid wastes, petroleum-based compounds, heavy metals, nutrients, pathogens, sediment, organic chemicals, pesticides, insecticides and other lawn care and cleaning materials. Wastewater: Water that, following capture or use by the community, does not currently have a form of beneficial recycling; includes greywater, sewage and stormwater. Water allocation: The specific volume of water allocated to water access entitlements in a given season, defined according to rules established in the relevant water plan. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The integration of urban planning with the management, protection and conservation of the urban water cycle, ensuring that urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and ecological processes. This involves the integration of water cycle management into urban planning and design so that it minimises the risks to the water bodies that supply water or receive the stormwater or recycled water. Wholesale market: A competitive market where a commodity such as water can be sought from multiple suppliers.

Telecommunications 2G: Second generation mobile telecommunications, digital mobile service that provides voice communications and a low level of data transmission. 3G: Third generation mobile telecommunications, digital mobile service that provides voice communications, high-speed data transmission and internet access. Asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL): A technology that converts telephone lines to paths for high-speed data services; enhancements to this technology include ADSL2 and ADSL2+. Backhaul networks: Backhaul transmission networks connect the central point of an access network (such as telephone exchange, HFC hub or mobile tower) to the rest of the network. Backhaul transmission is provided on either optical fibre or microwave. Bandwidth: The maximum data transmission rate, measured in bits per second (bps) Broadband: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Always onâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; high data speed connection. Technologies used to deliver broadband include ADSL, HFC, fibreoptic cable, wireless and satellite. Broadband over power line (BPL). A communications technology that uses electricity networks for the transmission of data, voice and video. Customer Access Network (CAN): The link between the telephone exchange and the consumer. Code division multiple access (CDMA): A digital standard that separates calls from one another by code. Digital subscriber line (DSL): A transmission technology that enables digital data services. DSL describes several technologies including ADSL, ADSL2 and ADSL2+. DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer). Technology located at exchanges or in roadside cabinets that take the copper lines from a customer premises and convert signals on/off them into a high speed pipeline to the internet.

166

Appendix C: Glossary Fibre-to-the-x (FTTx): A generic term for the configuration of a broadband network that uses optical fibre to replace all or part of the usual metal connection to the consumer.  (FTTB) Fibre-to-the-building: fibre reaches the boundary of the building.  (FTTH) Fibre-to-the-home: fibre reaches the boundary of the living space.  (FTTK) Fibre-to-the-kerb: fibre reaches typically within 300m of the consumer’s premises.  (FTTN) Fibre-to-the-node: fibre reaches a street cabinet typically further than 300m from the consumer’s premises.  (FTTP): Fibre-to-the-premise. Global system for mobile communication (GSM): A digital cellular standard operated by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. Hybrid fibre coaxial cable (HFC): A telecommunication connection that consists of optical fibre on major routes and coaxial cable connections to consumers. Long-term Evolution (LTE). LTE is an advanced mobile telecommunications standard and considered a pre-4G system. Microcell: An antenna and associated box that supplements the mobile network in heavy usage areas. A microcell may minimise the need for a larger facility. Public switched telecommunications network (PSTN): The network of the world's public circuit-switched telephone networks. Speed: Typical speeds are kilobits per second (kbps) and megabits per second (Mbps). Telecommunication facility: Any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network; or any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure or thing used, or for use, in or in connection with a telecommunications network. Voice over internet protocol (VoIP): A protocol for transmitting voice over data networks, also known as ‘Voice over DSL’. WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). A wireless digital communications system which can provide broadband wireless.

167

Appendix D: References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Australian Demographic Statistics, Bulletin 3101.0, March Quarter 2009, Tables 4 and 9, pp. 15 & 22. 2 Department of Treasury and Finance, 2010, 2009-10 Mid-Year Financial Report, p. 7. 3 Department of Climate Change, Tasmania: Summary of projected impacts webpage, http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:bpu4mq0JqOEJ:www.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/regions/tas.html+Tasmania+site:climat echange.gov.au&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au, accessed 10 October 2009. 4 Department of Climate Change, Tasmania: Summary of projected impacts webpage, http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:bpu4mq0JqOEJ:www.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/regions/tas.html+Tasmania+site:climat echange.gov.au&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au, accessed 10 October 2009. 5 Engineers Australia, 2009, Engineering Construction on Infrastructure: Tasmania, updated by Andre Kaspura in October 2009. 6 Local Government Association of Tasmania, Roads Forum Summary webpage, http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Forum_Summary.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 7 Department of Infrastructure, 2009, Energy and Resources, Annual Report 08-09, p. 71. 8 Local Government Association of Tasmania, Roads Forum Summary webpage, http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Forum_Summary.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 9 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Explanatory Statement – Auslink (National Land Transport) Act National Land Transport Network Determination 2005 (No.1) Variation 3, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/13162847C321895BCA257558001BB57B/$file/Networ kDeterminationvar3ESFINALFRLI.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 10 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 08-09, p. 71. 11 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Linear infrastructure: freight and urban movement, Southern Region Background Report, p. 77. 12 Information supplied by Hydro Tasmania. 13 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2006, Tasmanian Transport Infrastructure Investment Strategy 2006-07, p. 12. 14 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 15. 15 Infrastructure and Resource Information Service, road services webpage, http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/transport/road_services, accessed 23 November 2009. 16 Information supplied by the Department of Transport, 11 January 2010. 17 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2008, State Road And Bridge Emergency Management Plan, p. 3. http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44799/State_Road_And_Bridge_Emergency_Management_Plan.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 18 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2006, Tasmanian Transport Infrastructure Investment Strategy 2006-07, p. 13. 19 Adapted from Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy, p. 9. 20 Data obtained from local government documents or correspondence. 21 Tasmanian Parliament, 2009, Second Reading Speech The Hon David Llewellyn, Minister for Energy and Resources Forestry Amendment Bill 2009, http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2009/pdf/notes/60_of_2009-SRS.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 22 Adapted from Infrastructure and Resource Information Service, Transport webpage, www.iris.tas.gov.au/_maps/Transport/, accessed 23 November 2009. 23 Infrastructure and Resource Information Service, Governance and Regulation webpage, http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/transport/governance_and_regulation, accessed 23 November 2009. 24 McIlfatrick, Norm, 2009, Tasmania’s Roads – an important element of the economy, a presentation at the LGAT Roads Forum on 22 April 2009, www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/DIER_presentation.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 25 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Major Road and Rail Projects delivered in Victoria through the Nation Building Program 2008-09 to 2013-14, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/publications/administration/pdf/Tasmania_Major_Road_Rail_Projects.pdf, accessed 10 September 2009. 26 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Nation Building Program Roads to Recovery: Allocations for the Period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/publications/reports/pdf/RTR_funding_allocations_2009_14.pdf, accessed 10 September 2009. 27 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, Tasmanian Black Spot Projects Announced March and April 2009, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/publications/reports/pdf/Tas_BS_Projects_Mar_Apr09.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 28 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government webpage, http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/local/assistance/, accessed 23 November 2009. 29 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 28. 30 McIlfatrick, Norm, 2009, Tasmania’s State Infrastructure Strategy, Presentation, http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/42726/Tasmanias_State_Infrastructure_Strategy.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 31 Mcilfatrick, Norm, 2009, Tasmania’s Roads – an important element of the economy, a presentation at the LGAT Roads Forum on 22 April 2009, www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/DIER_presentation.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 32 Mcilfatrick, Norm, 2009, Tasmania’s Roads – an important element of the economy, a presentation at the LGAT Roads Forum on 22 April 2009, www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/DIER_presentation.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 33 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 21. 34 Department of Transport, Statistics webpage, http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/publications/statistics_-_historical, accessed 23 November 2009. 35 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 24 36 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Southern Tasmania, National Transport Network Investment Program 2007-2015, p. 2.

168

Appendix D: References

Department of Transport, Statistics webpage, http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/publications/statistics_-_historical, accessed 23 November 2009. 2009 figures supplied by the Department. 38 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 10. 39 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 2. 40 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 2. 41 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 2 42 Information supplied by the Department of Transport, 11 January 2010. 43 Information supplied by the Department of Transport, 11 January 2010. 44 Norton, Don, 2008, Southern Integrated Transport Forum, http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/23411/2_Dan_Norton_Freight.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 45 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 24. 46 DOTARS, 2007, AusLink Tasmanian Corridor Strategy, p ii. 47 Australian Transport Council, National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, p. 6. 48 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Our Safety Our Future-Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2007-20, p. 5. 49 Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources, Crash Statistics webpage, http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/safety/crash_statistics, accessed 6 January 2010. 50 Mcilfatrick, Norm, 2009, Tasmania’s Roads – an important element of the economy, a presentation at the LGAT Roads Forum on 22 April 2009, www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/DIER_presentation.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 51 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, September 2009, Monthly Bulletin webpage, http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RDA_0909.pdf, accessed 20 November 2009. 52 Austroads, National Performance Indicators webpage, http://algin.net/austroads/site/index.asp?id=3, accessed 28 September 2009. 53 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Tasmanian Crash Statistics Serious Injuries 2009, http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/36672/Serious_Injuries_Year_to_31_December_2009.pdf, accessed 20 February 2010. 54 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 71. 55 Enterprise Marketing and Research Services, 2009, Report on Residents’ Satisfaction with Local Government Services in Tasmania, p. 22. 56 Enterprise Marketing and Research Services, 2009, A Report on Residents’ Satisfaction with Local Government Services in Tasmania. p. 13. 57 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2006, Tasmanian Transport Infrastructure Investment Strategy 2006-07, p. 12. 58 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 71. 59 Auditor-General 2008, Follow up of performance audits: April-October 2005, Special Report No. 74, p. 54. December 2009 provided by DIER. 60 Austroads 1988, Guide to traffic Engineering Practice – Part 2: Roadway Capacity. 61 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 21. 62 Department of Infrastructure, April 2009, Final Stage 1 report, Energy and Resources Review of Passenger Travel Demand Measures Greater Hobart, p. 43. 63 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, pp. 22-23. 64 2006 figures, Tasmanian Government 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 21. 65 Wellington Park Management Trust, Sustainable Transport System, http://www.wellingtonpark.tas.gov.au/pdf/sustainable_transport_system_invitation_for_ideas.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 66 Hobart City Council, Draft Sustainable Transport Strategy, 2008. 67 Department of Economic Development, tourism and the Arts, 2009, Protecting Tasmania’s infrastructure against climate change, media release of 3 February 2009, http://www.development.tas.gov.au/economic/news_and_publications/news/2009/february/protecting_tasmanias_infrastructure_aga inst_climate_change, accessed 10 January 2010. 68 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 15. 69 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 15. 70 Local Government Association of Tasmania, 2009, Roads Forum – 22 April 2009 – Summary, http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Forum_Summary.pdf, accessed 10 November 2009. 71 Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Federal Investment in Tasmania’s Rail Infrastructure media release, 27 July 2009, webpage, http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2009/July/aa329_2009.htm, accessed 24 November 2009. 72 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.18. 73 Department of Infrastructure and Resources, 2009, East Tamar Highway Rail Bridge Damage and Repair and Replacement, p. 2. 74 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Investigation into the derailment south of Colebrook of Pacific National Tasmania train 435 on Thursday 11 December 2008, p. 12. New rails are 41 kg/metre, Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 22 75 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 76 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 77 Adapted from National Competition Council, Tasmanian Rail Network webpage, www.ncc.gov.au/images/uploads/DERaTRAp003.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009. 78 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 79 Australian National Audit Office, 1998, Sale of SA Rail, Tasrail and Pax Rail, p. 60. 80 Australian National Audit Office, 1998, Sale of SA Rail, Tasrail and Pax Rail, p. 23. 81 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 82 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 83 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Application for Declaration under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, p. 2. 84 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 9. 85 Future Transport Tasmania, 2009, Tasmania Rail: A vision for Tasmania’s railway future, pp. 1-2. 86 Legislative Council (Tasmania), 2009, Tuesday 23 June 2009 – Estimates Committee A (Sturges) - Part 1, p. 4. 87 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 5. 88 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 6. 89 Minister for Infrastructure, Rail Sale Agreement Finalised media release, 7 September 2009, webpage, www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=2776, accessed 25 November 2009. 90 Brown, Damien, 2009, ‘State must find $32m to buy rail’ in Hobart Mercury, 02 July 2009. 91 Parliament of Tasmania, webpage, http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2009/55_of_2009.htm, accessed 24 November 2009.

169

Appendix D: References

Parliament Of Tasmania, 2009, Rail Company Bill 2009 Second Reading Speech. Parliament Of Tasmania, 2009, Rail Company Bill 2009 Second Reading Speech. 94 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 18. 95 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Documents for the Business Sale Agreement for the purchase of the Tasmanian rail business (Business Sale Agreement, Employee Letter, Compensation Fund Side Letter, and Disclosure Letter), pp. 65-141. 96 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p. 9. 97 Information supplied by Department of Transport, 11 January 2010. 98 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Application for Declaration under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, p. 10. 99 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Application for Declaration under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, p. 10. 100 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.19. 101 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 35. 102 Stedman, Michael, 2008, ‘Off the rails’ in Hobart Mercury, 13 June 2008. 103 Auditor-General (Tasmania), 2009, Contract management, Special Report No 81, p. 19. 104 Information supplied by the Department of Transport, 11 January 2010. 105 Meyrick Consulting Group Pty Ltd, 2006, Appendix to Infrastructure Action Agenda: Supply Chain Case Studies, Prepared for Australian Logistics Council, p.51. 106 Meyrick Consulting Group Pty Ltd, 2006, Appendix to Infrastructure Action Agenda: Supply Chain Case Studies, Prepared for Australian Logistics Council, p.51. 107 Meyrick Consulting Group Pty Ltd, 2006, Appendix to Infrastructure Action Agenda: Supply Chain Case Studies, Prepared for Australian Logistics Council, p.51. 108 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 35. 109 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 73. 110 Derwent Valley Railway Inc, About the Society webpage, http://www.railtasmania.com/dvr/society.php, accessed 24 November 2009. 111 The Don River Railway, webpage, www.donriverrailway.com.au, accessed 24 November 2009. 112 Ida Bay Railway, webpage, www.idabayrailway.com.au, accessed 24 November 2009. 113 Department of Premier and cabinet, State of the State webpage, http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/media_room/speeches/state_of_the_state_2009, accessed 24 November 2009. 114 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 38. 115 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.18. 116 Parliament Of Tasmania, 2009, Rail Company Bill 2009 Second Reading Speech. 117 Austlii, webpage, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/bill/ebraab56o2009439/, accessed 23 November 2009. 118 Austlii, webpage, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/bill/cfaaf20092010b57o2009718/, accessed 23 November 2009 119 Parliament of Tasmania, Rail Bill Factsheet webpage, http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2009/pdf/notes/79_of_2009Fact%20Sheet.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 120 Future Transport Tasmania, webpage, http://www.futuretransporttas.org/2009-05/future-transport-tasmania-for-better.html, accessed 23 November 2009. 121 Future Transport Tasmania, webpage, http://www.futuretransporttas.org/2009_06_01_archive.html, accessed 24 November 2009. 122 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.18. 123 ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd, 2009, Vision 2020 Project: The Australian Minerals Industry’s Infrastructure Path to Prosperity, Prepared for the Minerals Council of Australia, p. 10. 124 Maunsell Australia, 2004, Analysis of Tasmania’s Freight Task, Confidential Report to the Tasmanian Government, quoted in Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007, Application for Declaration under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974, p. 13. 125 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 4. 126 Brown, Damien, 2010, ‘Hush-hush claim on derailment’ in The Mercury, 14 January. 127 Kempton, Helen 2009, ‘Derailment cuts water pipes and mine lifeline’ in Hobart Mercury, 03 April 2009. 128 Neales, Sue, 10 June 2009, ‘End of the line exclusive: Tassie Rail set to close’ in Hobart Mercury, 10 June 2009. 129 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Investigation into the derailment south of Colebrook of Pacific National Tasmania train 435 on Thursday 11 December 2008, p. 5. 130 Neales, Sue, 10 June 2009, ‘End of the line exclusive: Tassie Rail set to close’ in Hobart Mercury, 10 June 2009. 131 Neales, Sue, 10 June 2009, ‘End of the line exclusive: Tassie Rail set to close’ in Hobart Mercury, 10 June 2009. 132 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 35. 133 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Investigation into the derailment south of Colebrook of Pacific National Tasmania train 435 on Thursday 11 December 2008, p. 10. 134 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 4. 135 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 4. 136 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 21. 137 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 21. 138 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 21. 139 Completed in August 2008, undertaken by Transfield. Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 73. 140 Done by Queensland Rail, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 73. 141 Parliament Of Tasmania, 2009, Budget Paper No 2: Government Services 2009/10, Volume 1, Table 6.15, pp. 6.24-25. 142 Minster for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Federal Investment in Tasmania’s Rail Infrastructure media release, 07 July 2009, webpage, http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2009/July/aa329_2009.htm, accessed 25 November 2009. 143 Tasmanian Projects being funded under the Australian Government’s Nation Building Program 2008-09 to 2013-14. Nation Building Program, Tasmanian Projects webpage, http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/publications/administration/pdf/MOU_List_Tas_19_08_2009.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 144 Minister for Infrastructure, Federal Investment in Tasmania’s Rail Infrastructure media release, 7 July 2009, http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2009/July/AA329_Tasmanian_rail_Map.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009. 145 Parliament of Tasmania, Rail Bill Factsheet webpage, http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2009/pdf/notes/79_of_2009Fact%20Sheet.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009. 146 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 3. 93

170

Appendix D: References

147

Information supplied by the Rail Safety Unit, DIER. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 10. 149 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 10. 150 Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Australian Rail Safety Occurrence Data 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2009, p. 10. 151 Information supplied by the Rail Safety Unit, DIER. 152 Information supplied by DIER. 153 Information supplied by DIER. 154 Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2008, Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change, p. 25. 155 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 35. 156 Legislative Council, 2009, Estimates Committee A (Sturges) – Part 1 Hansard, 23 June, p.20. 157 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 3. 158 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 32. 159 TasPorts, About webpage, http://www.TasPorts.com.au/about/port_locations.html#, accessed 24 November 2009. 160 Parliament of Tasmania, Hansard, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Bill 2005, second reading, webpage, http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2005/48_of_2005.htm, accessed 25 November 2009. 161 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 24. 162 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 33. 163 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 5. 164 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 30. 165 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth media release, 19 August 2009, webpage, www.tasports.com.au/communications/press_releases.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 166 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth media release, 19 August 2009, webpage, www.tasports.com.au/communications/press_releases.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 167 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.37. 168 The Australian, August 7 2009, Toll and ANL tie up for Bass Strait. 169 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth media release, 19 August 2009, webpage, www.tasports.com.au/communications/press_releases.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 170 Shipping Industry, News webpage, 13 August 2009, http://www.shippingindustry.com.au/article/new-toll-anl-shipping-service-metwith-road-freight-backlash/494343.aspx, accessed 23 November 2009. 171 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth, Media Release, 19 August 2009, webpage, www.tasports.com.au/communications/press_releases.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 172 ABC, ABC News website, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/14/2570506.htm, accessed 5/11/09 173 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 2. 174 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth, Media Release, 19 August 2009. 175 The Examiner, TasPorts warns Government over Bell Bay’s Future, 20 August 2009. 176 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 31. 177 Meyrick Consulting Group, 2008, Review of the working port of Hobart, A report prepared for TasPorts Pty Ltd, p. 13. 178 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 31. 179 Meyrick Consulting Group, 2008, Review of the working port of Hobart, A report prepared for TasPorts Pty Ltd, p. 9. 180 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 32. 181 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 7. 182 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, pp. 2 and 27. 183 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 32. 184 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, pp. 17 & 27-29. 185 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, pp. 27-29. 186 TasPorts, Bell Bay Vital for Tasmania’s Long-Term Economic Growth, Media Release, 19 August 2009. 187 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 27. 188 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p.35. 189 Parliament of Tasmania, Hansard, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Bill 2005, second reading. 190 Marine and Safety Tasmania, About MAST webpage, http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/domino/mast/mastweb.nsf/v-luall/About+MAST?OpenDocument, accessed 24 November 2009. 191 Marine and Safety Tasmania, Strategic Plan webpage, http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/domino/mast/mastweb.nsf/v-luall/Publications~Strategic+Plan+2009-2010?OpenDocument, accessed 24 November 2009. 192 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 22. 193 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 33. 194 Meyrick Consulting Group, 2008, Review of the working port of Hobart, A report prepared for TasPorts Pty Ltd, p. 3. 195 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 37. 196 Meyrick Consulting Group, 2008, Review of the working port of Hobart, A report prepared for TasPorts Pty Ltd, p. 3. 197 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 20. 198 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 2. 199 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 16. 200 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 22. 201 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 16. 202 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 2. 203 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 16. 204 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 12. 205 Meyrick Consulting Group, 2008, Review of the working port of Hobart, A report prepared for TasPorts Pty Ltd, p. 3. 206 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 20. 207 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 37. 208 Tasmanian Government, 2009, Submission in Response to the National Aviation Policy Statement Green Paper, April, p. 8. 209 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 210 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, pp. 41-42. 211 BITRE, Airport Traffic Data webpage, http://www.bitre.gov.au/Info.aspx?NodeId=96, (Airport Traffic Data 1985-86 to 2008-09 (xls format)), accessed 7 November 2009. 212 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, pp. 13-14. 213 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, pp. 13-14. 214 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 41. 148

171

Appendix D: References

215

Hobart Airport, Redeveloped Hobart Airport Officially Launched media release, 10 August 2007, webpage, http://www.hobartairpt.com.au/upgrade.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 216 Hobart Airport, Redeveloped Hobart Airport Officially Launched media release, 10 August 2007, webpage, http://www.hobartairpt.com.au/upgrade.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 217 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, p. 31. 218 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, p. 35. 219 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, p. 35. 220 Australia Pacific Airports Corporation, Annual Report 2008, p. 28. 221 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 42. 222 Launceston Airport, Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2009, p. 35. 223 Launceston Airport, Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2009, p. 22. 224 Launceston Airport, Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2009, p. 22. 225 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 42. 226 TasPorts, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 5. 227 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 228 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 229 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2008, National Aviation Policy Green Paper: Flight Path to the Future, p. 169. 230 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 41. 231 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future, pp. 158-167. 232 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, 2009, National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future, pp. 178-179. 233 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 41. 234 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 235 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 236 HIAPL, Austexx Announcement Welcomed media release, 25 February 2009, webpage, http://www.hobartairpt.com.au/upgrade.php, accessed 25 November 2009. 237 The Mercury, Airport DFO a Step Closer, 17 September 2009. 238 ABC, News webpage, Launceston airport development may go ahead, 9 May 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/09/2240159.htm, accessed 24 November 2009. 239 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 40. 240 ATSB, Aviation Occurrence Statistics webpage, http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27391/aviationstats09.pdf, accessed 23 October 2009. 241 BITRE, Airline On Time Performance February 2010, http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/14/Files/BITRE%20OTP%20Report%20February%202010.pdf, accessed 12 April 2010. 242 New legislation, notably Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. 243 ACCC, Airport Monitoring Report 2007-08, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=865718&nodeId=6b2473b4c9a4133729df9f9f5c500798&fn=Airport%20monitorin g%20report%202007%E2%80%9308%E2%80%94chapter%206,%20Melbourne.pdf, accessed 23 October 2009. 244 Launceston Airport, Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2009, p. 28. 245 HIAPL, 2009 Hobart Master Plan-Preliminary Draft, p. 93. 246 National Water Commission, 2009, National Performance Report 2007â&#x20AC;&#x201C;08: Urban water utilities, p. 351. 247 Bureau of Meteorology, Average rainfall webpage, http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/annual_rnfall.cgi, accessed 20 October 2009. 248 Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 2001, Report on Water Availability in Tasmania â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Background Report for the Water Development Plan 2001 quoted in Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007/08. p. iii. 249 National Water Commission, How was water used by the economy? webpage, http://www.water.gov.au/WaterUse/WaterUsedByTheEconomy/index.aspx?Menu=Level1_4_2, accessed 26 November 2009. 250 Tasmanian Planning Commission, State of the Environment, Tasmania 2009, Rainfall and runoff, webpage, http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/278/index.php, accessed 13 April 2010. 251 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008/09, p. 29. 252 National Water Commission, Australian Water Resource 2005 webpage, http://www.water.gov.au/WaterUse/WaterUsedByTheEconomy/index.aspx?Menu=Level1_4_2, accessed 25 November 2009. 253 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Project Stages webpage, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-6W9839?open, accessed 25 November 2009. 254 Parliament of Tasmania, Water and Sewerage Corporations Bill Second Reading webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/WASP-Second-Reading-Speech-Corporations-Bill.pdf/$file/WASPSecond-Reading-Speech-Corporations-Bill.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 255 National Water Commission, National Water Initiative, webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/117-national-water-initiative.asp, accessed 1 October 2009. 256 National Water Commission, 2009, Australian Water Reform 2009: Second biennial assessment of progress in implementation of the National Water Initiative, p. 214. 257 Southern Water, Swansea Water Project webpage, http://www.southernwatertas.com.au/SouthernWater/Our+works/Swansea+Water+Project, accessed 25 November 2009. 258 $12 million was given in 2008 for this project by the Australian Government through the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns which funds projects that save water and reduce water losses in cities and towns nationally with populations of less than 50,000. http://www.environment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/cities-towns/index.html 259 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 26. 260 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 72. 261 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, pp. 2728. 262 Onstream, 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, p. 6. 263 Onstream services webpage, http://www.onstream.com.au/service.html, accessed 25 November 2009. 264 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, pp. 38 & 40.

172

Appendix D: References

265

Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, pp. 38, 40 & 54. 266 As of 1 July 2009, Southern Water, Public information campaign, Media Release, 20 May 2009, webpage, http://www.southernwatertas.com.au/SouthernWater/_Documents/CEO%20portal%20documents/May%20media%20release.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 267 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, Table 10.4, p. 90 and Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 108. 268 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 26. 269 Treasurer, Research into Water Meters, Media Release, 25 August 2009, webpage, http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:7TRJgyVVVf0J:www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php%3Fid%3D27641+tasmania+%22water+met ers%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au, accessed 25 November 2009. 270 Waterhouse, Charles, 2009, ‘State seeks fresh water meter reading’ in Hobart Mercury, 26 August 2009. 271 Waterhouse, Charles, 2009, ‘State seeks fresh water meter reading’ in Hobart Mercury, 26 August 2009. 272 Marchment Hill Consulting, 2009, Meter Rollout Options for Moving to Two-Part Pricing in Tasmania, A report for the Department of Treasury and Finance. 273 Tenders Tasmanian, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Reform factsheet webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/Factsheet-Water-Sewerage-Pricing-Regulation.pdf/$file/FactsheetWater-Sewerage-Pricing-Regulation.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 274 Waterhouse, Charles, 2009, ‘State seeks fresh water meter reading’ in Hobart Mercury, 26 August 2009. 275 DPIPWE, 2007, Pricing and Regulation Fact Sheet: Tasmania Water and Sewerage Reform, p. 2. 276 Treasurer, Changes to Water and Sewerage Pricing, Media Release, 15 April 2009, webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/MA-Media-Rel-15.4.09-WASP.pdf/$file/MA-Media-Rel-15.4.09WASP.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 277 Treasurer, Changes to Water and Sewerage Pricing, Media Release, 15 April 2009, webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/MA-Media-Rel-15.4.09-WASP.pdf/$file/MA-Media-Rel-15.4.09WASP.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 278 As of 1 July 2009, Southern Water, Public information campaign, Media Release, 20 May 2009, webpage, http://www.southernwatertas.com.au/SouthernWater/_Documents/CEO%20portal%20documents/May%20media%20release.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 279 Tasmanian Government Media Releases, Major Changes To Water And Sewerage Billing, 30 November 2009, webpage, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=28558 accessed 18 February 2010. 280 Parliament of Tasmania, Second Reading Speech - Water and Sewerage Industry Bill 2008, webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/WASP-Second-Reading-Speech-Industry-Bill.pdf/$file/WASP-SecondReading-Speech-Industry-Bill.pdf, accessed 26 November 2009. 281 Department of Health and Human Services, Guidance for Water Quality webpage, http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/about_the_department/structure/groups/chief_health_officer/population_health/units/public_and_environ mental_health/functions/environmental_health/programs__and__strategies/water_quality/guidelines_for_water_quality, accessed 26 November 2009. 282 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment, National Water Initiative Implementation Plan webpage, http://www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-6R78TG?open, accessed 26 November 2009. 283 National Water Commission, Capital City water use webpage, http://www.water.gov.au/WaterUse/Capitalcitywateruse/index.aspx?Menu=Level1_4_3, accessed 26 November 2009. 284 Ministerial Water and Sewerage Taskforce, 2006, Reform of Tasmania’s Water and Sewerage Sector: Discussion Paper, p. 8. 285 Parliament of Tasmania, Second Reading Speech - Water and Sewerage Industry Bill 2008, webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/WASP-Second-Reading-Speech-Industry-Bill.pdf/$file/WASP-SecondReading-Speech-Industry-Bill.pdf, accessed 26 November 2009. 286 Ministerial Water and Sewerage Taskforce, 2006, Reform of Tasmania’s Water and Sewerage Sector: Discussion Paper, p. 8. 287 Information provided by Southern Water and Ben Lomond Water. 288 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, pp. 4849. 289 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, pp. 4344. 290 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, pp. 4344. 291 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 49. 292 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 51. 293 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 50. 294 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 56. 295 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 67. 296 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, Table 6.5, p. 56. 297 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 70. 298 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 70. 299 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 105. 300 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 43. 301 Environment Protection Authority, Guidelines for Environmental Management: Use of Reclaimed Water, Victorian Government, 2003, p. iv-vii. 302 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, pp. 4344. 303 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, table 7.1, p. 48, and table 6.4, p. 42. 304 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 55. 305 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, Table 10.4, p. 90 and Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 108. 306 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 77. 307 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 68.

173

Appendix D: References

308

Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 68. Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 69. 310 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 79. 311 Melbourne Water, Recycling Water for a Greener Future, webpage, http://www.waterrecycling.vic.gov.au/default.asp, accessed 28 September 2009. 312 Southern Water, Clarence Recycled Water Scheme webpage, http://www.southernwatertas.com.au/SouthernWater/Our+works/Clarence+Recycled+Water+scheme, accessed 26 November 2009. 313 Southern Water, Clarence Recycled Water Scheme webpage, http://www.southernwatertas.com.au/SouthernWater/Our+works/Clarence+Recycled+Water+scheme, accessed 26 November 2009. 314 Department of Environment, Waste Management Legislation and Publications webpage, http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=251, accessed 26 November 2009. 315 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 33. 316 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 33. 317 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, pp. 3334. 318 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 64. 319 Department of Environment, Sewerage and Wastewater Management webpage, http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=243, accessed 26 November 2009. 320 Parliament of Tasmania, 1994, Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, Schedule 1, http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=365, accessed 26 November 2009. 321 Parliament of Tasmania, Water and Sewerage Corporations Bill Second Reading webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/WASP-Second-Reading-Speech-Corporations-Bill.pdf/$file/WASPSecond-Reading-Speech-Corporations-Bill.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 322 Ministerial Water and Sewerage Taskforce, 2006, Reform of Tasmania’s Water and Sewerage Sector: Discussion Paper, p. 8. 323 Information provided by Southern Water and Ben Lomond Water. 324 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 51. 325 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 52. 326 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2007-08, p. 52. 327 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 92. 328 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 92. 329 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. 93. 330 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2008-09, p. v. 331 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Sewage and Wastewater Management, webpage, http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=243, accessed 13 April 2010. 332 Derwent Estuary Program, 2009, Derwent Estuary Program Environmental Management Plan, p. 36. 333 Hobart Mercury, Laws down the drain, June 14 2009. 334 Derwent Estuary Program, 2009, Derwent Estuary Program Environmental Management Plan, p. 36. 335 Glenorchy City Council, 2009, 2009 - 2014 Strategic Plan, p. 30. 336 Latrobe Council, 2008, Latrobe Annual plan Appraisal 2008, p. 15. 337 Devonport City Council, 2009, Annual Plan and Estimates 2009-2010, p 66. 338 Burnie City Council, 2009, Annual Report 2008/09, p. 32. 339 Kingborough Council, 2009, Annual Plan and Budget Estimates 2009-2010, p. 2. 340 Circular Head Council, 2008, Annual Report 2007-2008, p. 14. 341 Water Development Plan for Tasmania Final Report, p. 24. 342 Derwent Estuary Program 2004. A model stormwater management plan for Hobart Regional Councils – a focus on the New Town Rivulet Catchment, p.7. 343 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 344 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 345 Department of Treasury and Finance, Water reform progress report webpage, http://www.tenders.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/fcce52186e9867674a25665500244b46/be0d22b113cd5c0eca2570c2001e2648?O penDocument, accessed 26 November 2009. 346 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 347 Derwent Estuary Program 2004. A model stormwater management plan for Hobart Regional Councils – a focus on the New Town Rivulet Catchment, p.7. 348 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 349 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 350 Derwent Estuary Program 2004. A model stormwater management plan for Hobart Regional Councils – a focus on the New Town Rivulet Catchment, p.3. 351 They effectively replaced The Soil and Water Management Code of Practice for Hobart Regional Councils (1999) and Guidelines for Soil and Water Management (June 1999). Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 352 Derwent Estuary Program, 2005, Water Sensitive Urban Design: Engineering Procedures for Stormwater Management in Southern Tasmania, pp. 1-2. 353 Derwent Estuary Program, 2009, Derwent Estuary Report Chapter 4, p. 51. 354 Enterprise Marketing and Research Services, 2009, Report on Residents’ Satisfaction with Local Government Services in Tasmania, p. 21. 355 Enterprise Marketing and Research Services, April 2009, A Report on Residents’ Satisfaction with Local Government Services in Tasmania, p. 22. 356 Chrispijn, John, 2009, Future Directions for Stormwater Management in the Derwent Estuary Region. 357 Department of Climate Change, Tasmania’s Climate webpage, http://www.climatechange.tas.gov.au/climate_class_room/what_does_this_mean_for_tasmania, accessed 26 November 2009. 358 Local Government Association Tasmania, 2007, Submission on Structural Reform Arrangements for Reform of Water and Sewerage Services in Tasmania, p. 7. 359 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, correspondence, 30 October 2009. 360 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 81. 361 Water Information System of Tasmania, Water Flow, webpage, http://water.dpiw.tas.gov.au/wist/ui#fopt, accessed 13 April 2010. 309

174

Appendix D: References

362

Minister for Primary Industries and Water, SMART Farming Water Initiative, Media release, 30 June 2009, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=27184, accessed 13 April 2010. 363 Adapted from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008, Stocktake of Australia’s Non-urban Water Metering Systems, p. 118. 364 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, pp. 80-82, and http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/water/supply. 365 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008, Stocktake of Australia’s Non-urban Water Metering Systems, p. 119. 366 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 3. 367 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008, Stocktake of Australia’s Non-urban Water Metering Systems, p. 119. 368 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 3. 369 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 2. 370 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 7. 371 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 3. 372 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 9. 373 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 10. 374 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 11. 375 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, pp. 80-82. 376 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 72. 377 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 81. 378 Tasmanian, Government, 2001, Water Development Plan for Tasmania, p. 9. 379 Department of Primary Industries and Water, 2008, Drought-proofing Tasmania: Tasmanian Irrigation Development Projects, p. 2. 380 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, pp. 80-82. 381 Department of Primary Industries and Water, The SMART Framing Water Initiative webpage, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter,nsf/Attachments/JMUY-6ZR928/$FILE/The%20SMART%20Farming%20FWDP%20handout.pdf, accessed 26 November 2009. 382 Premier of Tasmania, New Agri-Business Loans Guidelines finalised, Media Release, 8 May 2009, webpage, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=26650, accessed 26 November 2009. 383 Minister for Primary Industries and Water, SMART Farming Water Initiative, Media Release, 30 June 2009, webpage, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=27184, accessed 26 November 2009. 384 National Water Commission, Water Markets, webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/1832-rural-water-pricing-introduction.asp, accessed 1 October 2009. 385 National Water Commission, Rural Water pricing webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/1831-water-management-act-1999.asp, accessed 26 November 2009. 386 National Water Commission, Rural Water pricing webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/1830-irrigation-clauses-act-1973.asp, accessed 26 November 2009. 387 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Guiding Principles for Water Trading webpage, http://www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-5VE3MW?open, accessed 26 November 2009. 388 National Water Commission, Water markets webpage, http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/1868-guiding-principles-for-water-trading-intasmaniawater-resources-policy-20032.asp, accessed 26 November 2009. 389 It is also responsible for the Togari Water Supply Scheme which supplies water for stock and dairy sheds for 45 properties within the Togari district, the Furneaux Drainage Scheme on Flinders Island, the Welcome River Improvement Scheme, and the Montagu River Improvement Scheme http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/SSKA-7TQVQT?open. 390 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 2. 391 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Water in Tasmania webpage, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-6X473H?open, accessed 26 November 2009. http://www.tidb.com.au/. 392 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 67. 393 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Applying for a water licence webpage, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-4YA86N?open, accessed 26 November 2009. 394 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008, Stocktake of Australia’s Non-urban Water Metering Systems, p. 112. 395 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Applying for a water licence webpage, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-4YA86N?open, accessed 26 November 2009. 396 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 68. 397 Premier of Tasmania, Work begins on Quamby Irrigation Pipeline, Media Release, 8 May 2009, webpage http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=25917, accessed 26 November 2009. 398 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 72. 399 Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board, 2008, Current status of key water infrastructure projects. 400 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 73. 401 Government Media Statement, David Llewellyn Minister for Primary Industries and Water, 11 June 2009, Record Public Investment for Irrigated Agriculture. 402 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 3. 403 ABC, New irrigation pipeline goes in, 11 July 2009, news webpage, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/19/2629981.htm, accessed 26 November 2009. 404 11 June 2009 Government Media Statement David Llewellyn, Minister for Primary Industries and Water Record Public Investment For Irrigated Agriculture. 405 Tasmanian Irrigation Schemes Pty Ltd, 2008, First Annual Report for the Year 2008-2009, p. 5. 406 CSIRO, 2009, Water Availability for Tasmanian: CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, p. 3. 407 Tasmanian Climate Change Office, 2008, Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change, p. 19. 408 Tasmanian Climate Change Office, 2008, Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change, p. 19. 409 Adapted from ABARE, 2009, Energy in Australia 2009, p. 19. 410 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 44-48. 411 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, Electricity Licenses Issued webpage, http://www.energyregulator.tas.gov.au/domino/otter.nsf/8f46477f11c891c7ca256c4b001b41f2/919e3c7e7a6c6a55ca256cb1001c84 6f?OpenDocument#Generation, accessed 25 November 2009. 412 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 51. 413 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2007, Annual Report 2006/07, p. 55.

175

Appendix D: References

414

Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 17. Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 27. 416 Llewellyn, David, 2008, Ministerial Statement on equity restructuring of Hydro Tasmania and Transend Networks, 27 May 2008, p. 3. 417 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 15. 418 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.1. 419 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, Articles webpage, http://www.transend.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=59&ctl=Details&mid=401&ItemID=343, accessed 25 November 2009. 420 Aurora Energy, 2009, Distribution System Planning Report 2009, p. 3. 421 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.1. 422 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Statement of Reasons Approval of 2009/10 Distribution Maximum Prices and Network Tariffs and 2009/10 Retail Tariffs for Non-contestable Tariff Customers in accordance with the 2007 Price Determination, June, p. 20. http://www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au/domino/otter.nsf/LookupFiles/Statement%20of%20Reasons%20200910%20Retail%20Tariffs%20and%20Network%20Tariffs.pdf/$file/Statement%20of%20Reasons%20200910%20Retail%20Tariffs%20and%20Network%20Tariffs.pdf 423 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 19. 424 Llewellyn, David, 2009, More Energy Competition, media release, 1 December, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=28584, accessed 23 December 2009. 425 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Statement of Reasons Approval of 2009-10 Distribution Maximum Prices and Network Tariffs and 2009-10 Retail Tariffs for Non-contestable Tariff Customers in accordance with the 2007 Price Determination, June, p. 2. http://www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au/domino/otter.nsf/LookupFiles/Statement%20of%20Reasons%20200910%20Retail%20Tariffs%20and%20Network%20Tariffs.pdf/$file/Statement%20of%20Reasons%20200910%20Retail%20Tariffs%20and%20Network%20Tariffs.pdf 426 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 19. 427 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 128. 428 Hydro Tasmania, Bass Strait Islands webpage, http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Bass_Strait_islands/, accessed 23 November 2009. 429 Hydro Tasmania, Bass Strait Islands webpage, http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Bass_Strait_islands/, accessed 23 November 2009. 430 Hydro Tasmania, Bass Strait Islands webpage, http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Bass_Strait_islands/, accessed 23 November 2009. 431 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.3. 432 Transend, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 43 433 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 33. 434 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Office of energy webpage, http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/energy/home, accessed 23 November 2009. 435 AEMO, 2009, An Introduction to Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Electricity Market, p. 23. 436 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Statement Of Reasons and Final Decision on the Dissolution of the Reliability and Network Planning Panel, p. 9. 437 AEMO, 2009, An Introduction to Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Electricity Market, p.18. 438 AEMO, 2009, Electricity Statement of Opportunities for the National Electricity Market, Executive Briefing 2009, p. 3. 439 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 49. 440 AEMO, 2009, Electricity Statement of Opportunities for the National Electricity Market, Executive Briefing 2009, p. 10. 441 AEMO, 2009, Electricity Statement of Opportunities for the National Electricity Market, Executive Briefing 2009, p. 10. 442 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp. 46-48. 443 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, pp.46-48. 444 Adapted from Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 46. 445 Tasmanian Planning Commission, State of the Environment Tasmania 2009 webpage, http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/ppl/5/issue/31/ataglance.php, accessed 10 April 2010. 446 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 17. 447 AEMO, 2009, Electricity Statement Of Opportunities For the National Electricity Market, Executive Briefing 2009. 448 Hydro Tasmania, media release, Confidence in Security of Supply, 3 December 2008. 449 Adapted from Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2010, OTTER News, March, p. 2. 450 Adapted from Hydro Tasmania, Storage Management and Drought, p. 13. 451 Hydro Tasmania et al, 2006, Tasmanian Climate Change: A Hydro Tasmania, CSIRO, UTAS and TPAC Project: Fact Sheet, p. 2, http://www.hydro.com.au/documents/Energy/climate%20change%20fact%20sheet.pdf 452 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 19. 453 AEMC, 2008, Annual Electricity Market Performance Review 2008, p. 9. 454 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. 91. An example was a mainland generation incident on 2 July 2009 caused a USE of approximately 1,783MWh in Tasmania (p. 16). 455 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 2.9. 456 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. 12. 457 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. 17. 458 Transend, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 18-19. Figures for 2008/09 are from Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09, p. 71. 459 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.5. 460 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. 16. 461 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 4 462 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, 2009, Annual Planning Report, p. 4 463 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. ix. 464 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.6. 465 ESAA, 2009, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, Table 3.6. 466 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, Draft Report, p. 54. 467 Aurora Energy, 2009, Distribution System Planning Report 2009, p. 3. 468 Aurora Energy, 2009, Distribution System Planning Report 2009, p. 66. 469 Hydro Tasmania, Our Environment webpage, http://www.hydro.com.au/Home/Our%20Environment/, accessed 24 November 2009. 470 Hydro Tasmania, 2009, Electricity in Tasmania: A Hydro Tasmania perspective, p. 15. 471 Transend Networks Pty Ltd, Environment and Safety webpage, http://www.transend.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=61, accessed 25 November 2009. 415

176

Appendix D: References

472

Aurora Energy, 2009, Distribution System Planning Report 2009, p. 74. Transend Networks Pty Ltd, Articles webpage, http://www.transend.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=59&ctl=Details&mid=401&ItemID=341, accessed 25 November 2009. 474 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, 2009 Reliability Review, p. 91. 475 Aurora Energy, 2009, Distribution System Planning Report 2009, p. 52. 476 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, The 2008 Reliability Review Report, p. VIII. 477 Launceston Examiner, 2009, ‘Tassie is warming to gas’, 10 August 2009. 478 Information supplied by TasGas on 12 October 2009. 479 Information supplied by on 12 October 2009. 480 Tasmanian Gas Pipeline, About us webpage, http://www.tasmaniagaspipeline.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=54, accessed 25 November 2009. 481 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 147. 482 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 147. 483 Tas Gas, About us webpage, http://www.tasgasnetworks.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=16, accessed 25 November 2009. 484 Tas Gas, About us webpage, http://www.tasgasnetworks.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=16, accessed 25 November 2009. 485 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 72. 486 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 76. 487 Tasmanian Government, 2007, Tasmanian Government Five-Yearly Infrastructure Report, p. 72. 488 The Mercury, ‘Heat on Gas Network’, 9 July 2009. 489 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 158. 490 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 149-150. 491 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 146. 492 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 155. 493 Department of Treasury and Finance, 2008, The Competition Index 2007–08: An Inter-Jurisdictional Comparison, p. 11. 494 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 189, 191. 495 Adapted from the objectives of the Gas Act 2000 and the Gas Pipelines Act 2000. 496 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2007-08, p. 42. 497 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, Gas Regulation in Tasmania, http://www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au/domino/otter.nsf/37a626b6002dc799ca256c4b002114c4/7f96381f3eaea979ca256c4c002 29e0f?OpenDocument, accessed 25 November 2009. 498 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, Gas Regulation in Tasmania, http://www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au/domino/otter.nsf/37a626b6002dc799ca256c4b002114c4/7f96381f3eaea979ca256c4c002 29e0f?OpenDocument, accessed 25 November 2009. 499 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, Pipeline License, granted to BOC Limited, 27 August 2009. 500 Aurora Energy, media release, New acquisition improves energy security for Tamar Valley Power Station, 13 January 2009. 501 Information supplied by TasGas on 12 October 2009. 502 ESC, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 33. 503 ESC, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 33. 504 ESC, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 14. 505 ESC, 2008, Gas Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2007, p. 16. 506 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 156. 507 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 155. 508 Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, 2009, Tasmanian Energy Supply Industry Performance Report 2008-09. p. 155. 509 Tas Gas, Why gas webpage, http://www.tasgasnetworks.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5&limitstart=1, accessed 24 November 2009. 510 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications Report 1, p.8. 511 AMTA, 2008, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Industry: Economic significance and contribution, p. 6. 512 ACMA, 2008, Top Six Trends in Communications and Media Technologies, p. 5. 513 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 61. 514 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 61. 515 Auditor-General (Tasmania), 2009, Contract management, Special Report No. 81, p. 37. 516 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 63. 517 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 61. 518 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmanian Infrastructure Strategy, Projects, webpage, http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/infrastructure2/digital_overview/projects, accessed 13 April 2010. 519 Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2004, National Broadband Strategy – Government Action Plan 2005, p. 1. 520 Premier of Tasmania, Media Release, Maximising Tasmania’s Broadband Opportunities, 11 June 2009. 521 ACMA, Telecommunications Regulation webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_1593, accessed 7 September 2009. 522 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 62. 523 ACMA, Telecommunications regulation, webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_1593, accessed 7 September 2009. 524 IRIS Tasmania, Telecommunications Governance and Regulation webpage, http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/telecommunications/governance_and_regulation, accessed 11 November 2009. 525 TMD, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Networking Tasmania (NTII) webpage, http://www.tmd.tas.gov.au/Navigation/Business_Units/Telecommunications_Supplier_Management/Networking_Tasmania_II/default .asp, accessed 11 November 2009. 526 Department of Premier and Cabinet, Inter Agency Policy and Projects Unit webpage, http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/gis/inter_agency_policy_and_projects_unit, accessed 11 November 2009. 527 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 59. 528 Macquarie Telecom, 2009, Submission in Response to DBCDE’s Backhaul Blackspots Initiative (‘BBI’) Stakeholder Consultation Paper, p. 3. 529 Internode, Home ADSL2+ sales resume in Tasmania, Media Release, 3 December 2008, webpage, http://www.internode.on.net/news/2008/12/120.php, accessed 11 November 2009. 473

177

Appendix D: References

530

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09, Issue 8146.0, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8146.0Media%20Release1200809?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8146.0&issue=2008-09&num=&view=), accessed 10 January 2010. 531 Aurora Energy, Basslink, Bass Strait agreement delivers broadband competition to Tasmania – media release, 10 November 2008, webpage, http://www.digitaltasmania.org/uploads/media_releases/2008-11-10_MR_Aurora_Basslink.pdf, accessed 25 November 2009. 532 ACMA, 2008, Top Six Trends in Communications and Media Technologies, p. 4. 533 Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, National Broadband Network: 21st century broadband webpage, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/national_broadband_network, accessed 16 November 2009. ACMA, Digital Data Service Obligation webpage, http://www.acma.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_1722, accessed 16 November 2009. 534 ABS, 2009, 8153.0 – Internet Activity, Australia, June. 535 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications Report 2, p.13 536 Aurora Energy, National Broadband Network Tasmania webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/nbn_tasmania/default.asp, accessed 11 November 2009. 537 Aurora Energy, National Broadband Network Tasmania webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/nbn_tasmania/default.asp, accessed 11 November 2009. 538 Aurora Energy, National Broadband Network Tasmania webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/nbn_tasmania/default.asp, accessed 11 November 2009. 539 Department of Premier, media release, 8 November 2009, webpage, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=28031, accessed 2 February 2010. 540 Aurora Energy, National Broadband Network Tasmania webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/nbn_tasmania/default.asp, accessed 11 November 2009. 541 Aurora Energy, NBN Tasmania webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/NBN_Tasmania/frequently_asked_questions.asp, accessed 2 February 2010. 542 Minster for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 2010, $100 million injected into NBN Tas as Stage 3 rollout is announced, media release, 1 March 2010. 543 Aurora Energy, Initial National Broadband Network Rollout webpage, http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/pdf/nbn/maps/tasmaniastatewide-rollout.pdf, accessed 11 November 2009. 544 ACMA, 2008, Telecommunications Today Report 4: Consumer Satisfaction, p.12. 545 ACMA, 2009, Convergence and Communications, p. 9. 546 Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, 2009, Annual Report Part 1, p. 5. 547 ACCC & ACMA, 2008, Communications Infrastructure and Services Availability in Australia, p. 28. 548 Tasmanian Government, 2008, Tasmanian Government submission to the National Infrastructure Audit, p. 6. 549 Telstra, Telstra hits century: launches 100th ADSL2+ exchange in Tasmania – media release, 28 September 2009 webpage, http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?ObjectID=45625, accessed 25 November 2009. 550 ACCC & ACMA, 2008, Communications Infrastructure and Services Availability in Australia, p. 5. 551 ADSL2Exchanges, Tasmania ADSL webpage, http://www.adsl2exchanges.com.au/providerexchanges.php?Location=TAS, accessed 23 November 2009. 552 Telstra, 2009, Telstra Response to the Backhaul Blackspots Initiative Stakeholder Consultation Paper, p. 15. 553 Telstra, 2009, Telstra Response to the Backhaul Blackspots Initiative Stakeholder Consultation Paper, p. 3. 554 IRIS Tasmania, Telecommunications Supply webpage, http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/telecommunications/supply, accessed 11 November 2009. 555 Telstra, Telstra hits century: Launches 100th ADSL2+ exchange in Tasmania, Media Release, 28 September 2009 webpage, http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?ObjectID=45625, accessed 25 November 2009. 556 Newsmaker, Vodafone’s 3G network switched on in regional South Australia: bringing choice and value to customers, 4 September 2009, webpage, http://newsmaker.com.au/news/1365, accessed 24 November 2009. 557 Optus, Optus Dual Band Network Coverage - Tasmania webpage, http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/aboutoptus/menuitem.cfa0247099a6f722d0b61a108c8ac7a0/?vgnextoid=491d10009d82e110V gnVCM10000002cd780aRCRD, accessed 10 January 2010. 558 Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, 2009, Annual Report Part 1, p. 5. 559 Infrastructure and Resource Information Service, Telecommunications webpage, http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/infrastructure/telecommunications, accessed 25 November 2009. 560 The broadband plans suspended from sale were HOME ADSL2+ plans, and Internode recommenced selling them in December 2008. 561 Connecting the Australian Channel, News webpage, http://www.crn.com.au/News/149577,internode-first-isp-to-cross-bass-straitwith-basslink.aspx, accessed 18 January 2010. 562 ITnews, Technology webpage, http://www.itnews.com.au/News/141356,internode-to-run-basslink-backup-on-telstra-backhaul.aspx, accessed 18 January 2010. 563 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2008, Maintaining the State’s Regional Arterial Road Network, p. 7. 564 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2008, Maintaining the State’s Regional Arterial Road Network, p. 1.

178