RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Schedule 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am referring to clause 117—Assessment of competence, which imposes on the rail transport operator an obligation to ensure that when personnel are accredited (in particular, rail safety workers) they have 'the competence to carry out that work'. There are significant fine provisions if that does not occur.

For the purposes of this competence, the criteria for assessment are set out in subclauses (3) to (6). I am curious as to how this assessment has been enhanced by this new provision. Previously, there had been an obligation to have qualified and competent personnel but this is supposed to, in some way, enlighten us now under the new scheme of being a more defined link to the AQF, which is referred to in subclause (2).

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am sorry: I do not understand the question.

Ms CHAPMAN: How is it more effective in determining that someone has the competence with this link to the AQF?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What occurs at present is that a number of operators do, as I understand it, use the training standards set out by the AQTF, but not all do. There is a view that those standards are correct and we wish to use them. It addresses the nature of the industry and the fact that not all operators have used those standards, or it is not the sole way of bringing people up to the proper level of skill. It has been pointed out that the registered training organisation will put more rigour around the process, but there are operators who use this skill base at present and, if you like, this has formalised the recognition of those skills and incorporates the training organisations but also recognises that some people have acquired their skills in different ways.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would understand that, except under subclause (2)(a), for the purposes of identifying that competence, the rail safety worker must be assessed:

(i) in accordance with the provisions of the AQTF—

which is there—or:

(ii) ...in accordance with any other qualifications or competencies prescribed by the national regulations.

So it does not actually impose the obligation that it can only be at that standard—which may be a good standard: I am not saying it is not—but it still gives this alternative, which is really as it applies now, isn't it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The specific requirements have not been prescribed in the past. The bill now prescribes that you can meet standards by reference to these, but it does not make it the only way of satisfying the requirements of the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: I now move to clause 130, under division 10—Train safety recordings. This is a new provision to define train safety recordings. As I understand it, if recording equipment is installed, this provides for restrictions on the disclosure of recordings and their use in evidence in proceedings, whether that is criminal or civil. Again, my question is, why is it necessary to provide a definition clause? Is there some requirement to be prescriptive in some other legislation, or has there been some failure in the part of criminal or civil proceedings in the identification or admissibility of recordings that has created this, or is there some other reason?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not understand that there has been an argument in the past about the definitions, but it is the case that they are used in proceedings. During drafting, it was believed that, to avoid any argument about what such an instrument is, it should be defined in the act for the future.

Ms CHAPMAN: As a matter of practice, where are these recordings kept? Are they kept in some kind of repository in the Department of Transport? Perhaps you could explain that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It would be kept by the operators. They would have obligations, but they would be kept by the operators. We do not have a library of them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 137 relates to the accountability of rail safety officers, and these are the people employed in government who continue to have the role under the regulations to enforce the provisions of the act. Here now, as distinct from the 2007 state legislation, there is a level of accountability that has been committed to the legislation. My question is, why is this necessary, minister, when these rail safety officers already have legal obligations as public sector employees?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It has been a lengthy process to reach this bill, and we have had to look at a whole lot of legislation. I will come back to you but it may well be that this has been drawn from a piece of legislation elsewhere, and it was considered to be a useful addition to a national bill. What we have here is not simply the South Australian rail safety bill but also one that was needed to satisfy all the different jurisdictions, and it may well have arisen from that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I want to clarify whether there is any other level of accountability for public servants in this section—that is, the rail safety officers in South Australia—by signing up to this? Is it more than their obligation is already under the Public Sector Act?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My initial response is that I would consider that they would probably have obligations under the Public Sector Act in regards to conflict of interest. That certainly is my understanding. I do not believe it imposes a greater one, but you have to understand that, being a national law, it may be that other jurisdictions have dealt with it this way, rather than through the Public Service. However, those are certainly matters we can deal with you in correspondence if you wish, but I do not think they are earth shaking, so, if you like, we will confirm what I have said.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will now move to division 2 under part 6, which commences at clause 204. This sets out the exemptions that can be granted by the regulator and essentially allows an operator to operate under exemption without having the accreditation, with or without conditions. My question is not about the terms of how this operates, because the process seems quite straightforward, but: can you tell us how many operators are undertaking their business under exemptions, that is, without accreditation or under conditional—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Could you tell me the number again?

Ms CHAPMAN: It commences at clause 204. It is the process under these clauses which sets out the exemption procedure, enabling the registrar to grant an exemption. My question is: how many operators or businesses are undertaking rail work in the state under exemption?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There are none at present in South Australia, but that does not mean there have not been. The law was often used for short-term events that are rail like but not ones the law seeks to govern on an ongoing basis, such as maybe some community event.

Ms Chapman: Like the Barossa train?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If the Barossa train is carrying passengers, we may not exempt them if they ever run.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 243 relates to the delegation by a minister. Under our current legislation the minister cannot delegate any function or power. As I understand it, only the regulator can delegate this. I suppose we need some explanation as to why, as minister, you would be assuming some responsibility in this area, or at least power to do this, when we have a regulator, it is independent and it is supposed to be operating in some autonomous way. Is there some explanation as to why that is being introduced?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not think there are any specific areas of delegation contemplated at the moment but, because the ambit of it now is much greater than before, it was considered that it may be necessary at some point, just for the ordinary efficacy of business, to have the capacity to delegate. This now has a reach to all the state, but I cannot tell you of any particular delegation that is sought to be made as a result of this provision.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2 and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (16:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank the house for its assistance.

Bill read a third time and passed.