Source: https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=13106.0
Timestamp: 2018-11-14 11:28:48
Document Index: 550631658

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 11', 'art1']

NGR related RTIs
Author Topic: NGR related RTIs (Read 1283 times)
« on: April 22, 2018, 07:04:16 AM »
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Right-to-Information/Disclosure-log
Re: NGR related RTIs
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2018, 07:04:53 AM »
15 February 2017 135/04793
Correspondence between Queensland Rail CEO Helen Gluer and Director-General Neil Scales (PDF, 5.6 MB) regarding the New Generation Rollingstock Project from 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016.
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2018, 07:05:46 AM »
25 October 2016 135/04553
Briefing notes and memos to the Minister (PDF, 84.51 MB) regarding:
a) the recruitment of additional train drivers and guards (including for MBRL, NGR)
b) the extra services for the Redcliffe Peninsula Line (formerly the Moreton Bay Rail Link).
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2018, 07:06:13 AM »
1 November 2016 135/04569
Departmental and Ministerial Briefing Notes and attachments, reports, emails and internal correspondence (PDF, 547 KB) to and from Queensland Rail, relating to:
1. New Generation Rollingstock (NGR);
2. QR driver recruitment.
Timeframe: 01/01/2015 to 01/11/2016.
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2018, 07:07:03 AM »
5 February 2018 135/05521-MIN
Email correspondence within the former Transport Minister Jackie Trad's office relating to Downer EDI/Downer and its potential involvement in the New Generation Rollingstock (NGR) project. Time frame for request: 1 September 2017 - 9 November 2017. (This application was made to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads) Currently being processed.
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2018, 07:09:13 AM »
1 March 2013 135/01700
All communication between Transport and Main Roads Director–General, Michael Caltabiano's Office and Queensland Treasury and Trade.
Part 1 (PDF, 587 KB), part 2 (PDF, 18.87 MB), part 3 (PDF, 4.47 MB), part 4 (PDF, 42.76 MB), part 5 (PDF, 16.98 MB), part 6 (PDF, 3.18 MB), part 7 (PDF, 1.41 MB), part 8 (PDF, 4.02 MB), part 9 (PDF, 4.47 MB), part 10 (PDF, 3.24 MB), part 11 (PDF, 1.51 MB)
Moving on. This is good background this RTI file.
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/aboutus/rti/disclog/2013/13501700part1.pdf?la=en accessed 2nd April 2018
This clearly shows when DTMR took over NGR and MBRL from Queensland Rail, ~ July 2012. Page 9.
As we now know, this was rather a sad move. Both NGR and MBRL ran off the rails !!
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2018, 10:05:57 AM »
Quote from: ozbob on April 22, 2018, 07:04:53 AM
Interesting reading this one.
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2018, 10:45:11 AM »
A very interesting set of documents. Confirms that TMR was the lead agency and that QR had considerable difficulties with TMR over NGR delivery. Neil Scales at the top of the tree when it comes to responsibility.
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2018, 08:58:31 PM »
Quote from: ozbob on April 22, 2018, 07:09:13 AM
Tbh i thought this was common knowledge. Maybe it was but not outside QR. The Newman Govt has a lot to answer for. QR had to fix the MBRL before it could even open, are now forced to run terrible trains on their network and can't recruit traincrew quickly enough because no-one wants to be a tutor anymore. Thank goodness he didn't get around to privatising the Gold Coast line and BNH-FG.
Thanks Cambell!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 09:04:11 PM by PoliticalFootball »
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2018, 05:44:34 PM »
On July 2nd 2012, Michael Caltabiano asked this of Helen Gluer, the CEO of QR:
In respect of the NGR project … requested of HG
- a reallocation of all funding from QR to TMR
- her agreement that QR would transfer to TMR 'lead agency' arrangements.
That is when TMR took charge.
And, in respect of the Moreton Bay Railway Project, Helen Gluer wrote an email to Michael Caltabiano on May 23rd 2012 and said:
"Thank you for your email outlining your proposal to move funding and responsibility for the MBRP from QR to your department." (This included the rail corridor works, which previously was to be delivered by QR.)
So, guess which projects were stuffed up? NGR and Moreton Bay Rail Project. Who was in charge? Certainly not QR. Who was in charge of TMR, which took over both projects?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 08:46:20 PM by Stillwater »
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2018, 07:38:24 PM »
Quote from: Stillwater on July 02, 2018, 05:44:34 PM
This is what needs to be made public. Because I can tell you that people who work QR are getting rather tired of being blamed for others decisions.
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2018, 10:04:00 PM »
I remember that the auditor general was removed from the QR board. Another line of inquiry to look at. Coincidence?
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2018, 07:39:33 AM »
Important change in QR about the time, 2012-13:
“Another change announced was the institutional restructure transferring Queensland Rail from a Government Owned Corporation to a Statutory Authority. While this does not affect our business operations or key priorities, it does represent an important step in our reform journey.”
From the QR Annual Report 2012-13.
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2018, 08:04:28 AM »
Which ended up being overturned by the High Court.
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2018, 09:17:52 AM »
Quote from: PoliticalFootball on July 03, 2018, 08:04:28 AM
What happened to have the high court involved?
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2018, 10:06:43 AM »
Quote from: ozbob on July 03, 2018, 09:17:52 AM
https://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/high-court-win-for-unions-rail-workers-20150408-1mggjt
Basically ruled QR can't be a stat authority because it trades as a company/have a board so it couldn't be brought under the state system.
Was just the first step towards fully privatising QR. Most people i know stood to lose 30-40k per year if it went through.
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2018, 11:56:46 AM »
^ Not quite. QR is very much a statutory authority at the moment. The issue was what industrial relations system applied - Newman was trying to get away from the Fair Work Act by saying it wasn't a "trading corporation" (which has a different meaning from "company" for the purposes of the law in question) and that because it was a statutory authority it was covered by the state's own system. It's a question of form over function, but the black letter law fact remains that QR is "in house" and not a GOC.
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2018, 12:23:18 PM »
Right. Thanks for the clear up. Different story depending on who you talk to.
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2018, 04:57:51 PM »
Nothing wrong with QR being privatised provided that the model is right. Would give QR a measure of true independence against politicisation and micromanagement.
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2018, 09:13:09 AM »
Quote from: #Metro on July 03, 2018, 04:57:51 PM
I disagree. Privatisation drives prices up and services down. Plenty of examples from around the country/world why public services like rail should be government run.
Good article hear regarding the state of affairs in Britain (article is from last year but they are still having the same issues)
https://www.citymetric.com/transport/rail-privatisation-hasn-t-worked-it-s-time-reverse-it-3613
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2018, 10:23:12 AM »
I think the railfail combined with fare increases we have endured easily nullifies the 'driving prices up and services down' if privatised argument.
Public or private.....there is still incompetence and/or greed.
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2018, 11:25:22 AM »
Quote from: techblitz on July 04, 2018, 10:23:12 AM
I agree with the last bit, but a private company is there to make money. Profit is king. How do you ensure a profit? Higher prices and/or spending down. Usually both.
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2018, 08:41:19 PM »
^ Problems with that article include its not a fee-for-service model like we already have operating in SEQ for aeons,
but a fee for passenger model similar to what Melbourne had. A key nuance overlooked.
Not true that catastrophe is a general outcome. e.g. - Sydney Ferries experience, Brisbane CityCat, Gold Coast Light Rail.
You have also assumed that the public option is perfectly efficient. Hasn't been demonstrated and a possibility exists that it might not be vs competitor. For example, the Strachan report details very clear inefficiencies which I am led to believe have been protected in the latest EBA (which perhaps QR was nudged to sign)
Restricting recruitment of external applicants creates four challenges:
1. For every driver that Queensland Rail recruits from guard ranks, Queensland Rail must recruit an
additional person, typically from other parts of Queensland Rail, to replace that guard. This depletes
talent across the organisation and requires Queensland Rail to undertake a further recruitment
process to fill vacated positions
2. Restricting the pool of driver applicants to current guards reduces the number of applicants from
outside Queensland Rail and limits the number of female applicants due to the demographic of
guard ranks
3. Limiting the sources of applicants reduces the competitive nature of the recruitment process and
hence the future quality of potential train crew
4. During periods of high demand for guards, guards may be withdrawn from driver schools to operate
services, hence elongating training durations.
The Commission notes that other rail operators such as Deutsche Bahn and Sydney Trains have had
significant success recruiting drivers and guards from outside their organisations, and have maintained
lower average training durations than Queensland Rail.
(Strachan Report, p 36) https://www.strachaninquiry.qld.gov.au/assets/commission-of-inquiry-report-trains-crewing-report.pdf
That internal first approach to hiring is wasteful because you have to recruit twice. A private competitor, such as Deutche Bahn,
that got rid of that approach would already be ahead of QR.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/putting-sydney-ferries-in-private-hands-was-a-good-idea-report-finds-20160204-gmlihj.html
If QR's service and management offering really is The Best (TM) - put it to the test of an open and competitive tender process.
Then we will really know.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 09:55:03 PM by #Metro »
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2018, 07:21:02 AM »
Quote from: #Metro on July 04, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
While I agree with a lot of what that report implies and recommends, i don't agree with hiring external drivers straight away. Guards sure, but unless you have previous rail experience from either being a guard or train maintenance you will struggle with the training. EVERY previous external driver applicant I have spoken to has said the same thing and my own personal experience gives me a decent insight.
What needs to happen is a big clear out and restructure of QR from the team leader level up. There is so much dead wood, arrogance and managers doing the same job it's rediculous. This is where the real inefficiencies reside.