Bills

Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous No 4) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 February 2019.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:01): As far as I am aware, I have not yet spoken on this bill. I recall, however, the contribution of the member for West Torrens at the end of the last day of sitting, on 28 February, in which he made remarks with which I wholeheartedly agree in relation to the desirability of national cooperation with a view to harmonisation of national rail safety laws. I will refer in a moment to two of the topics upon which the member for West Torrens reflected briefly in terms of the process under which that harmonisation has been achieved.

I recall that he referred to a certain degree of reticence in relation to his Victorian colleagues in terms of coming to agreement about particularly the urine testing aspects of the bill, but I am glad to hear that was resolved. Secondly, he referred to the question of the process of cost recovery and the regulator's ability now to engage a private auditor, and I think that the member for West Torrens queried whether or not there was a process of cost recovery in those circumstances.

This bill is part of the fourth round of such reforms under the national law, as I am aware, going back to 2009, and it is well to just note that this is one of those areas in which South Australia is the host state of a national regime that automatically applies the amendments that we have agreed in the COAG process, I think with the exception of Western Australia, which has an enabling process for enabling the legislation, so there will need to be consequential legislation in Western Australia. The rest of the states and territories have legislation that will have the effect, much like under the corporations act and other processes of national harmonisation, that once we make and proclaim the amendments in this state they will flow on directly.

At the outset, it is well that I take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on his excellent work in this area. I am happy to say that the minister is present in the chamber for the continuation of this debate, as are members of the minister's staff who, I am advised, ably assisted the minister in what has been the very smooth passage of the fourth round of reforms that are the subject of this amendment bill.

There are amendments in a variety of categories; some of them clear up some administrative matters. Perhaps most substantively, there are amendments to insert new provisions that will provide for urine testing analysis to occur for the first time in addition to the suite of other testing processes that have been available to the regulator over the journey. I will come to those in a moment.

Having congratulated the minister on his good work, and having noted that South Australia has been the host state for these national laws from the outset of this process, it is also well to remind ourselves that this is one of those areas of national cooperation that is well and truly front of mind in the public's imagination in terms of the way that we have come together as a nation both prior to and since Federation. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have referred often to the fact that we have at least three different rail gauges in South Australia alone. Harmonisation has remained a challenge in this space throughout the country.

Different rail gauges are only one example of the challenges that face us in a situation where it is well that we have as seamless an approach to the regulation of the industry as we possibly can. Technology advancements permit us to overcome the range of physical challenges that come our way, including the legacy of multiple rail gauges. The member for Finniss has drawn my attention to some of the marvellous technology presently used in Europe, particularly in Spain and France, to overcome differences in rail gauge by means that are really quite wondrous. I very much encourage honourable members to inquire into and inform themselves about some of the wonderful things that can be done through engineering solutions on rail carriages to adjust the gauge where even very high-speed trains move from one gauge to another.

It is not just the physical challenges that are many as we harmonise: there is obviously a harmonisation of the regulatory space, particularly in relation to safety. I referred at the outset to the member for West Torrens' contribution when this bill was last before the house. He adverted to his Victorian colleagues and counterparts having had some reticence or slowness to come on board for a time in relation to these proposed changes. As I understand it, there was a period from about May until November during which there was the possibility of some foreshadowed difficulty, but that happily resolved itself in the course of last year. Otherwise, as I understand it, all parties have participated in a constructive way towards what will now be adopted across the country.

In relation to the second matter the member for West Torrens raised concerning the question of cost recovery in the context of the regulator being empowered to go out to private sources for the provision of financial reports, it is well to note that I am told there are, in fact, only three participating jurisdictions that operate in circumstances of 100 per cent cost recovery from industry. I am told that for the 2018-19 financial year the remaining jurisdictions' cost recovery range was from as low as 34 per cent up to 72 per cent.

The agreed cost recovery model that will take us forward will provide for an increase of 5 per cent over CPI of the amount that may be recovered from industry each year for the cost of regulation. That will reduce the government's contribution by a like amount annually for the jurisdictions that are not in a position to achieve full cost recovery. Also, in this regard I am advised that the South Australian government pays the annual accreditation fees for the six operators—and these totalled a little over $35,000 in 2018-19—as a community service obligation.

So, in relation to the matter of cost recovery that was raised by the member for West Torrens, it would seem to me that the change to allow for the provision of reports from private sources will be a responsible and appropriate step, to include not only the public sector but also the private sector in sourcing the necessary expert advice that would permit those obligations to be met. That is to be found in the amendment to section 43 that is the subject of clause 5 of the bill.

In the short time still available to me I would like to reflect on the provisions that are to be now inserted as an addition to the range of analyses available when checking to ensure there is no breach of drug or alcohol provisions by users on the rails. That starts at clause 7 of the bill. As I said earlier in my remarks, this is entirely new in the sense that it provides for a urine test but not so in terms of the regime to which it applies. The regulator has been conducting these tests but, until now, has not included a urine test as part of the scope of analyses available.

Clause 9 of the bill provides for a new section 127A of the act that deals with the facilitation of testing specifically in relation to the necessary provision of access by an authorised person to go ahead and conduct those tests on railway premises to the degree that it may be necessary to do so. It is a penalty provision and provides for a sanction in the event that a person who is reasonably required to facilitate that process fails to do so.

Further offence provisions are set out in clause 10 of the bill. They include new offences in relation to hinder or obstruction, or otherwise attempts to make life difficult for the person whose job it might be to carry out those powers that are the subject of the division. Quite properly, serious penalties are provided for that will be set out in new sections 128A, 128B and 128C in relation to the hindering or obstruction of the authorised person assaulting, threatening or intimidating an authorised person and, thirdly, interfering or tampering with or destroying samples, respectively. So, quite appropriately, those offence provisions will, one trusts, assist in smoothing the way for the authorised person to carry out the necessary work. There are further and consequential changes in relation to the introduction of those provisions.

Further, as others have already remarked, and as the member for West Torrens in his contribution to the debate on the last occasion remarked, there are a number of updating aspects as well, beyond the novel aspect of the bill, which is the introduction of the urine test. Honourable members will note that those include the updating of what is now to be understood as the proper meaning of a level crossing. Secondly, the definition of a rail or road crossing is similarly updated. Those matters, it is understood, are not controversial but self-explanatory and the subject of clause 4 of the bill.

It has really been a matter of achieving, insofar as it is novel, agreement by all the participating jurisdictions around this new testing regime. As has proved to be the case in matters involving multiple jurisdictions and quite clearly serious subject matter, the process might be reasonably anticipated to involve at least some pushback or controversy. It is greatly to the credit of the minister and his staff, those advising him, that this has been able to be achieved with more or less immediate and thoroughgoing agreement by all jurisdictions.

The fact that the member for West Torrens' colleagues in Victoria took their time to consider this and then come on board perhaps speaks to their thoroughness, I hope, and otherwise further commends the appropriateness of this additional part of the testing regime. With South Australia as the host, we will be leading the charge in further reforming this important area of harmonised legislation. I commend the bill to the house.