RAIL COMMISSIONER BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2009. Page 3773.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:04): I indicate that I am the lead speaker in this house on this bill, which the opposition supports. The bill was introduced on 9 September by the government and will re-establish the position of Rail Commissioner. This position has a long history in South Australia, and I think Mr Hook, who has been appointed as the interim Rail Commissioner, can be thankful that we are not using the title that was used in 1854 when the South Australian Railways had a board of undertakers, because he would be the chief undertaker.

The history of South Australian Railways is complex, and I will talk about that a little later. However, the bill before us is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. Some questions have been put to the opposition by various stakeholders, which I will mention in my second reading speech, and hopefully the minister can respond to those concerns.

The background to this is that prior to 2008 the Rail Safety Act defined a 'rail transport operator' as an owner or operator of rail infrastructure or rolling stock. They were subsequently accredited under the act. In 2008, changes to the act altered the accreditation requirements to 'effective management and control' rather than mere ownership or operation of rail infrastructure and/or rolling stock. The Rail Safety Bill in 2007 implemented the National Rail Safety Bill 2006, developed by the National Transport Commission. The bill was unanimously approved by the transport ministers through the Australian Transport Council and was part of the process to implement a nationally consistent framework for the regulation of rail safety across the national rail network over the proceeding five years. The opposition supported that bill without question.

Prior to the new Rail Safety Act 2007, the state government had absolved TransAdelaide of its responsibility for rail infrastructure assets and many future responsibilities for major infrastructure projects such as those announced in the last state budget; that is, the electrification of rail and extensions. In a recent government briefing, it was stated that TransAdelaide is not qualified to manage these projects.

These two changes have culminated in a need for the government to determine who will effectively manage and control the new rail infrastructure projects, and it has been determined that a statutory body corporate is the best option. That body would be the Rail Commissioner, which would be constituted by a person accredited under the Rail Safety Act, appointed by the Governor.

Mr Rod Hook is the Deputy Executive Director of Major Projects and oversees a team of staff with expertise in rail infrastructure and operations. He has been appointed by the Governor to be the Rail Commissioner for 12 months pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act or until the enactment of this bill for the progression of contracts. Until then, Mr Hook is required to act 'as if accredited'.

If the bill passes, as we expect, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will apply to the Rail Safely Regulator for Mr Hook's accreditation. Obviously, there is no guarantee that the application will be successful. However, the department is working closely with the regulator to ensure that competence and capacity is demonstrated and the application is successful.

Whether there should have been a selection process open to all public servants is a question for the government. Mr Hook's competence is not being questioned at all. I know that in 1922 there was a worldwide search for the then rail commissioner, because in 1920 the South Australian Railways was £290,000 in debt. Mr William Webb was appointed back in 1922 on a salary of £5,000 per annum. In current terms, that is $1.56 million a year. Whether Rod Hook is getting paid that I do not know.

Mr Venning: What year was that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: It was 1922. I know this for a fact, because Mr Webb was allowed to bring his own personal accountant with him, Mr Harry Goldbeck, who is the father of a very good friend of mine. Mr William Webb, the first rail commissioner, was in fact this friend's godfather. We are going back to the past, in many ways, with the introduction of this position. It is a very important position, and I will just mention some of the tasks that Mr Webb had to face back then. What we have now is deja vu with respect to what was happening then. The Rail Commissioner will have the following functions:

construct rail structures;

manage and maintain rail infrastructure;

commission and maintain rolling stock;

operate or move rolling stock;

move rolling stock to operate a railway service;

act as a rail transport operator for operations carried out by the commissioner;

hold accreditation under the Rail Safety Act;

manage risks associated with railway operations;

operate passenger transport services by train or tram; and

enter into service contracts under the Passenger Transport Act.

The Rail Commissioner will have the following powers:

to enter railway premises for particular functions...and abide by particular conditions regarding entry time, safety, financial compensation and notification;

subject to ministerial approval, acquire land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act to carry out functions;

remove or cut back any tree or vegetation on or overhanging rail infrastructure (there is a concern by the civil contractors about that and I will talk about that in a moment);

subject to ministerial approval, carry out works relating to construction, commissioning and maintenance of rail infrastructure (including making good on any damage to roads and for the disturbance of a road surface, notification and consultation);

subject to ministerial approval, close and limit the use of railways for railway operation purposes, and

subject to any pre-existing contract or agreement, rail infrastructure takes precedence over roads and, subject to ministerial approval, the commissioner may close roads and require a council to construct or reconstruct a portion of road to conform to rail infrastructure.

The cost to the council there is an issue on which I think the minister might want to inform the house.

Section 14 of the bill provides that the Rail Commissioner, deputy or delegate must inform the minister of any interests that may conflict with its function. One of the stakeholders has raised the issue of the potential for conflict of interest. Clause 13 provides that the commissioner may delegate any of the commissioner's functions or powers to a particular person. The regulator would be informed in writing of this in order that all delegations are approved. The Governor is able to appoint one or more deputy commissioners, and it is therefore envisaged that functions and powers will be delegated to them under section 16. The opposition supports this bill.

I will briefly inform the house of the history of the Rail Commissioner's position in South Australia. As I mentioned, Mr William Webb was appointed in 1922 and served to 1930 as a South Australian Railways commissioner. He was brought in after a worldwide search to tidy up South Australian Railways' worst financial deficit. He was an American railroad manager from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas railroad. Mr Webb introduced a rehabilitation plan based on American railroad principles. It is interesting to note that the lightly patronised passenger trains were replaced by self-propelled railcars, enabling faster, more frequent and more efficient services. The antiquated Islington workshops were demolished and replaced with a thoroughly modern railway maintenance/manufacturing works, and the Adelaide Railway Station was replaced with an imposing new building, opened in 1927.

The government at the moment is upgrading and replacing railway infrastructure and rolling stock in a similar way to that done by Mr Webb. There is an undeniable issue in South Australia that there has been an underspend on a lot of infrastructure, and there is a lot of good reason for that. I look forward to seeing the government not just have visions but have plans, time lines and costings in place because we all want the public transport system in South Australia to be as efficient as it was when Mr Webb had finished his program.

It is interesting to see that we have new trams arriving, and when the two shiploads of new locomotives arrived in 1926 they caused a sensation amongst the public, and apart from some initial teething problems (which we know about) the new locomotives settled in nicely. It appears that the trams are now working well. After the success of the original locomotives, more were locally built. Why we cannot build some rolling stock here is a question the government needs to answer.

Mr Webb retired in 1930, having revolutionised the South Australian Railways. I hope that Mr Hook is able to undertake some revolutionary work, and I wish him well in the position. One other little matter Mr Hook may want to implement is something Mr Webb put in place back in the 1920s. There is a bit here about Mr Webb:

Mr Webb was a man with a formidable and powerful personality who achieved great things through an unfailing reciprocal exchange of loyalty, yet he could accept some men, who did not always reach adequate fulfilment, without rancour or over-disappointment. The basic humane man always came to the surface, and the legend of the Silver Goat gives us a good perception of the deep sense of humour, which could never have been far from that terrific driving force that spurred him on without relent. Webb held regular conferences with all his heads of branches and virtually everything of any weight was discussed frankly at these meetings and particularly the progress of the great rehabilitation works under way and the efficiency with which the various sections were being run. If anything of a serious nature had occurred on a division, or time schedules, or completion of works had not been maintained, the superintendent or head of the branch was presented with a Silver Goat.

This was held by the recipient until the next conference to remind him that he had done what he said he would do. 'The order of the goat' became an honour to which few aspired. The story goes that one day the goat (it was an actual 'model') was presented to Alfred N. Day, who promptly had a raging paranoid reaction and the animal went into limbo for some time. Webb's tolerance to men who fell short in the less arduous demands of office never extended to any who let him down on major works, particularly if they had promised the Chief Commissioner something which they subsequently could not keep up.

They were inevitably given the 'order of the goat'.

I wish Mr Hook the best in his position. I do not know whether he will be getting the equivalent of £5,000 a year for this. I do have some concerns about his other roles and the load that he is taking on. Rod Hook, like Mr Webb, has undying loyalty. He did work for the former Liberal government, and I know that he works very hard for the current government. With those comments, I wish this bill speedy passage.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:16): I, too, rise to support this bill and make a brief contribution to the debate on the Rail Commissioner Bill 2009. This bill has been introduced by the government to establish a rail commissioner to act as a rail transport operator for the delivery of state government rail infrastructure projects. Prior to 2008, the Rail Safety Act defined a rail transport operator as an owner or operator of rail infrastructure or rolling stock. The rail transport operator was subsequently accredited under the act. In 2008 changes to the act altered the accreditation requirements to 'effective management and control', rather than mere ownership or operation of rail ownership and/or rolling stock.

The history to get to where we are now is that the Rail Safety Bill 2007 implemented the National Rail Safety Bill 2006. The bill was unanimously supported by transport ministers throughout the Australian Transport Council and was part of the process to implement a nationally consistent framework for the regulation of rail safety across the national rail network over the proceeding five years. It is to be noted that the opposition supported that bill without question.

This is part of a change towards a national regulatory scheme, and this bill before us is the next step. As seen by some people with whom the opposition has consulted (including the Civil Contractors Federation), it is an appropriate requirement given the legislative path down which the government has proceeded. The state government informs us that this bill adheres more closely than any other state's bill to the National Transport Commission's model rail safety legislation.

Rod Hook has been the Deputy Executive Director of Major Projects, and he will be put up as the interim Rail Commissioner. His accreditation will need to be approved. He has been appointed by the Governor for 12 months (or until the enactment of this bill) for the production of contracts; until then, Mr Hook is to act as if accredited. If the bill passes, DTEI will have to apply to the Rail Safety Regulator for Rod Hook's accreditation. Obviously, the department is working closely with the regulator to ensure that competence and capacity is demonstrated and that the application is successful.

It is to be noted that Rod Hook is presently extremely busy with major projects. This will increase his workload, and I hope that it does not cause any problems. I note that the Rail Commissioner will have many functions, including constructing rail structures, managing the rail infrastructure and maintaining and operating the rolling stock. The commissioner's powers include the ability to enter railway premises and to maintain native vegetation, etc., around railway lines. Also, subject to ministerial approval, they include the ability to close and limit the use of railways for railway operation purposes, and other powers.

I have always been amazed that in this country in the past we have had narrow, standard and broad gauge lines. I note that in the early nineties I was part of a team of contractors who worked with the railways to standardise the line. My part was a small section between Coomandook and heading towards Keith, where we standardised the line from broad gauge. It has never made sense that we have had all these different gauges, but that is what happens when you have states with competing interests and ideologies. In saying that, the opposition supports the bill. Let us hope that it has a speedy passage through the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:21): I join my colleagues in supporting this bill, and I congratulate the member for Morphett on the carriage of this bill. As members would know, I have always supported legislation which supports or promotes the South Australian rail system. Anything that improves our rail system and the service to our commuters should be supported, and the opposition does so in this instance.

There is a bit of history here. Is this deja vu? Is this the return of the old SAR? In some ways you could say, yes, in a minor way. I was never in support of the abolition of SAR by the Dunstan Labor government back in the sixties, I think. There was a big move to get rid of it, and ever since then our rails have taken a back step. How ironic is it that in this instance this government brings it back again?

There have been many very famous rail commissioners in the past, and the member for Morphett mentioned but one, but there are several over history who were prominent in the state parliament. You only need to read Hansard to see how important this role was. There were people like Fitch, who was a very important operator in relation to the rail commissioner. The Rail Commissioner has a specific job to do, as is mentioned in this legislation, which is to deliver state government rail infrastructure projects.

As I have said many times before, I believe that government is responsible for the rail system. It is the responsibility of government to provide a system that works, and it should not be driven by the profit motive, because, let us be honest, in very few instances over the years has rail ever paid; only on very lucrative tourism corridors does it ever pay. I cannot resist mentioning here that I hope the Rail Commissioner will see the advantage and the benefit of reintroducing the rail passenger services beyond Gawler to the Barossa Valley, and I will certainly be speaking to the new commissioner about that, if it is possible.

Finally, I congratulate Mr Rod Hook, who I know very well. I have full confidence in him to carry out this role well, as he always does, and I hope it does not compromise the positions that he currently holds. Again, I always say that it is the moral responsibility of government to supply rail infrastructure to its people, and in this instance I think it is a move in the right direction and we support this bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (11:23): I thank members opposite for their contribution, and I appreciate their identification of Rod Hook as a person who does a very good job for the state. That is certainly my view, and it is an illustration of the special skills that he has that he does as much as he does, but it is also an illustration of the very large increase in infrastructure spending that we are seeing in the state as well.

I was going to answer some questions, but I could not quite discern any, except why we do not build trains locally. The government is not going to get into the business of building trains, and I do not think anyone on that side would suggest that it should be a government enterprise, but we would certainly love to hear from someone who wants to build trains in Australia, because it is a fairly expensive exercise bringing trains and trams over to Adelaide from the places where we buy them in Europe. It adds significantly to the bill.

I note that, originally, our trams were built in my electorate, I think; not the new ones, the 80 year old ones. What I would point out to people is that it is an interesting question. The real issue has been the volume of manufacture but, given that we have, I think, an order in excess of 70 items of rolling stock coming up, it would be good to see at least some of that work done in South Australia. However, as I said, the government will not be establishing its manufacturing works; I think those days are long gone.

I thank members for their support. It is largely a tidying up bill. It provides a proper corporate structure for a rail commissioner which we believe is right. In regard to the other comments relating to civil contractors, I think it is an advantage for those seeking to win work on the rail that we do not have to go out and find those who are doing the work who are accredited. We will have a rail commissioner who has the overall control who carries that accreditation. I think that may well be of benefit to local firms in the future. It is a very large program and we hope that many local firms are involved in it.

I can say that it is $2.6 billion to roll out over the next 10 years. It is a continuous rolling program, as I said, with many items of new rail stock, and I look forward to working with Rod Hook in his role. From what I am hearing, it does worry me that, in creating rail commissioners of this nature, further down the track in 20 years' time, everyone will remember Rod Hook and no-one will remember poor old me, but I think I will manage to live with that. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.