By Chris Smith
Western Australia has introduced legislation for a potential buyback of its leased freight rail network. But the Bill does not itself buy the network, force freight off roads or reveal the price taxpayers could pay.
The key question for trucking is not whether rail should replace road. It cannot. The question is whether public control of the network could make rail a more practical option for the freight tasks it suits—while road remains essential for everything rail cannot reach.
The Rail Freight System (Acquisition and Reorganisation) Bill 2026 was introduced into the WA Legislative Assembly on 16 September and remains at second reading.
It gives the State a legal framework to acquire what the legislation calls a “below-rail freight business”: the track, related assets and network-management operation that allows freight trains to run. The network is currently operated by Arc Infrastructure under a long-term lease, with Brookfield negotiations continuing.
Importantly, the Bill does not commit WA to a deal.
The Cook Government says it will only proceed if the acquisition is economically and financially responsible, following legal, commercial, financial and technical due diligence. Arc Infrastructure continues to operate the network under existing arrangements while that work continues.
What the Bill actually enables
If the Government decides to proceed, the Bill would allow the Transport Minister to authorise the Public Transport Authority to acquire the below-rail business for the State.
That could be structured through a share purchase, an acquisition of assets and liabilities, or rights including leases and licences. The proposed approach is therefore broader than simply buying tracks and handing them to a government agency.
The PTA could carry on the acquired business after a transaction. But the legislation also provides for a later “reorganisation”, which could include private investment, private operation or disposal of all or part of the business.
That matters because this is not necessarily a straightforward or permanent public-ownership model. The Bill creates the tools for an acquisition and a subsequent operating structure. It does not disclose what that structure will be.
It also allows rail-corridor interests connected to a reorganisation to run for up to 99 years, instead of the 50-year limit in the current Rail Freight System Act.
Why the Government wants the option
The Government says public control of the 5,500-kilometre freight rail network would give it more scope to invest in infrastructure, support major users and respond to growth in mining, agriculture, industrial freight and port-linked supply chains.
Its argument is that a more reliable and competitive rail network could move more suitable freight by rail, reducing heavy-vehicle movements and road wear in regional areas.
That position has support from the Western Australian Local Government Association, which says local governments bear direct road-maintenance costs and community impacts associated with heavy vehicle traffic.
For regional communities, the potential benefit is not just fewer trucks. It is whether rail can provide a credible, reliable and affordable option for commodities such as grain and other high-volume freight moving long distances to port.
What it means for road freight
The Bill does not create any new truck restrictions. It does not mandate a road-to-rail shift, set freight volumes, change WA heavy-vehicle access arrangements or establish new rail subsidies.
Any change in the road-rail balance would depend on later decisions about investment, access charges, train paths, service reliability and the actual commercial terms offered to customers.
Road freight will remain essential.
Trucks carry the first and last kilometres between farms, mines, warehouses, customers, rail sidings, intermodal terminals and ports. They are also the only practical option where active rail is absent, where consignments are too dispersed or time-sensitive, or where the rail service does not stack up commercially.
WA’s own freight planning recognises that road can be the more efficient option where there is no active rail infrastructure near the freight origin.
The practical test is therefore not “rail versus trucks”. It is whether each mode is being used where it does its job best.
If a buyback improved rail performance and pricing on suitable long-haul bulk corridors, it could reduce some road task. But it may also make the remaining road task more focused on feeder work, regional collection and delivery, and freight that requires the flexibility only trucking provides.
The unanswered questions
The State has not disclosed the prospective purchase price, the valuation method, the intended long-term ownership model or the specific freight volumes it expects to move from road to rail.
Those details will determine whether the proposal produces better outcomes for freight customers—or simply changes who controls the network.
Questions WA Transport should answer include:
- What is the estimated acquisition cost and ongoing taxpayer exposure?
- Will the business case and due-diligence findings be published before a final decision?
- What service, access, reliability and pricing targets would apply after any acquisition?
- Which freight corridors or commodities are expected to shift from road to rail?
- How will the Government protect freight customers and regional operators where rail is not available or competitive?
- Is PTA ownership intended to be temporary, and what private-operation or investment arrangements are being considered?
For now, the Bill is a significant enabling step, not a completed buyback.
The real freight story will be in the deal—if one is reached—and whether it makes rail a stronger partner to road freight rather than treating road as a problem to be designed out.