Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2023.)

Mr BROWN (Florey) (16:01): I rise to support the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill 2023, a crucial piece of legislation that will have a significant impact on our rail industry, promoting safety and efficiency while creating a sustainable financial framework for the sector.

It has been said that our rail network is the lifeblood of our nation, connecting communities, moving goods and providing essential services across the vast expanse of our beautiful country. The importance of rail safety cannot be overstated, as it is a matter of public trust and confidence, ensuring that our citizens can rely on the services provided by this vital industry.

As the house considers this piece of legislation, I believe it is essential to recognise that the rail safety bill 2023 is not only a matter of policy but a reflection of a shared commitment to the safety and wellbeing of our community. The bill represents our dedication to upholding the highest standards in rail safety while acknowledging the dynamic nature of the industry and the need for an updated and effective regulatory framework.

This bill has its roots in the 2011 Council of Australian Governments agreement which called for the development of national regulators for rail, maritime and heavy vehicles that would progress towards full cost recovery from industry operators. South Australia has taken a lead in legislating the Rail Safety National Law, working tirelessly to ensure that the legislation reflects the principles set out by the COAG agreement.

These principles include transparency, a national approach to fees, proportionate fees based on risk classification, alignment with regulatory effort, avoidance of cross-subsidisation and simplicity in administration. As we consider this important bill, let us keep in mind the significance of these principles and their role in shaping the future of rail safety in South Australia and indeed across our nation.

I would now like to speak specifically about the amendments that this legislation seeks to implement and the implications it has for commercial and tourist and heritage operators. The purpose of the rail safety bill is to make essential amendments to the Rail Safety National Law, supporting the implementation of a new cost-recovery model and the associated changes it brings. Key amendments include expanding the definition of a private siding to encompass freight terminals, removing accreditation fee requirements for freight terminal managers, requiring all Australian governments to cover the cost of regulating tourist and heritage operators, ensuring that these operators are recorded in the National Rail Safety Register and prescribing a method for the annual increase of various fees.

The target date for the bill's implementation is 1 July 2023. It is important to note that the regulator has been actively engaging with the industry to ensure that they are prepared for the changes that will come into effect on that date.

For commercial operators, the new cost-recovery model entails a significant shift from the current funding structure. Under the proposed framework, commercial rail transport operators will be required to pay an annual accreditation fee based on their risk profile and the regulatory effort expended by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR). This new model offers a more nuanced and precise approach to fee calculation, moving away from the fixed annual fees and variable fee based on track kilometres that are currently in place.

The risk profile of each operator will be determined using a risk profiling tool developed by the ONRSR that takes into account inherent risk, management and control, and safety performance. Once operators have been assigned a risk profile score, they will be ranked and grouped into one of six cost-recovery tiers. This tier-based approach ensures that operators with higher risk profiles and greater regulatory effort requirements pay higher fees while those with lower risk profiles pay less.

For less complex commercial operators, amendments to the national regulations will allow them to apply for a determination that their operations require less regulatory oversight. If granted, these operators will be required to pay a reduced annual accreditation fee. Furthermore, the bill's proposed changes to the definition of private sidings directly affect commercial operators as it will allow freight terminals to be included in the definition. This change enables the rail infrastructure managers of certain freight terminals to be registered instead of accredited, resulting in lower application fees and annual fees for these managers.

One area of industry that is particularly impacted by this bill is that of tourist and heritage operators. Under the current arrangements, these operators are required to pay a reduced annual fixed fee of $2,000 in addition to a variable annual fee. However, these fees cover only around 5 per cent of the cost of regulating the sector, with the remainder of the cost being shouldered by commercial operators.

In light of the infrastructure and transport ministers' agreement that the cost of regulating tourist and heritage operators will be borne by all governments, including the commonwealth, the rail safety bill aims to significantly reduce the subsidisation of the sector by commercial operators. Consequently, governments across all jurisdictions will collectively contribute $4.9 million to cover the cost of regulating tourist and heritage operators. South Australia's contribution is estimated to amount to 4.81 per cent of the national contribution to the ONRSR, as agreed upon in May 2021.

This bill is the product of extensive consultation and engagement with various stakeholders, including industry representatives and government officials. The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has worked diligently to develop a cost-recovery model based on risk and regulatory effort, incorporating insights from international cost-recovery models, risk profiling tools and regulatory effort data collection.

Throughout the development of this model, the ONRSR has conducted four formal consultation stages, which consisted of chief executive briefings, risk profiling workshops, the release of a cost-recovery consultation paper and financial impact discussions with commercial operators. Additionally, draft legislation was circulated to industry and union representatives for consultation in September 2022.

The rail industry's response to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly positive. Despite many commercial operators facing higher fees, they have understood and accepted the logic and application of the new cost-recovery model. It is clear that the industry has recognised the importance of a transparent, risk-based and proportionate approach to funding the regulation of rail safety.

This bill marks a significant milestone in the ongoing pursuit of improved rail safety. By implementing a new cost-recovery model based on risk profiles and regulatory effort, this bill ensures a more equitable and transparent funding structure ultimately benefiting commercial operators, tourist and heritage operators and governments alike.

In conclusion, this bill represents a significant step forward in the ongoing development and refinement of our nation's rail safety regulatory framework. By taking a comprehensive, consultative and risk-based approach, this bill offers a more transparent, equitable and effective funding structure for the rail industry while ensuring the safety of both passengers and operators. This bill stands as a testament to the government's ongoing partnership with regulators and the rail industry as well as the dedication of all parties to delivering better outcomes for our community.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator and all stakeholders who contributed to the development of this bill. Their hard work, diligence and commitment to a robust regulatory framework have laid the foundation for a more secure and prosperous future for our rail industry. I would also like to thank the office of the Minister for Transport for its assistance in providing information about the bill and the process that has been involved in its development. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (16:09): Rail safety is a very important topic in my electorate of Badcoe, so I am particularly pleased that South Australia is the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law. This amendment bill is the latest instalment in that model bill work that is being done by South Australia. I would like to take the opportunity to thank those, some of whom are in the gallery with us today, who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation: the ONRSR but also those in the minister's office who have no doubt spent countless hours making sure that this piece of legislation, complex as it is, comes to this parliament in good shape.

The bill implements the 2011 COAG agreement that national regulators for rail, maritime and heavy vehicles progress towards a full cost-recovery model for industry operators. Although I have not heard many contributions from the other side yet, I understand that there is broad consensus and support for this bill, which is great. I will go into a little more detail about the bill later, but I want to take the opportunity to highlight a few things in relation to rail safety that pertain particularly to my electorate, given we are talking about rail safety in this bill.

Mr Acting Speaker, I can tell you that Badcoe has a total of 16 train and tram stops, which has to be right up there amongst electorates; eight train stations along the Belair and Seaford-Tonsley lines; and also eight tram stops along the Glenelg line, several of which form the border between my electorate and Unley, so the member for Unley would be familiar with those stations as well.

All but two of the train stations have level crossings, so there is quite a degree of interaction in my community between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, and our train and, for that matter, tram network. There are many other points at which to cross as well, not just at the actual stations, which are not boom gated, and those are obviously important in allowing intercommunity, pedestrian and bike access but also can have their own risks and dangers.

It has been a very sad eight or nine months in my community because we have seen not one but two terrible tragedies in the Badcoe community due to rail accidents. One happened less than two weeks ago at Ascot Park when a 41-year-old gentleman who was on a bicycle collided with a train at Ascot Park station on Railway Terrace and Sixth Avenue.

That has rightly horrified people in that local area who witnessed it at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but many people have also expressed to me that they have been thinking of the train driver in that matter who would not have had time to slow down. We know that when there are such collisions, whether they are near misses, injuries or fatalities, they do take a toll on those who are doing the good and sometimes difficult work of driving our trains and trams. That matter is currently being investigated.

Another one that I understand the Coroner is also investigating, and police are aiding the Coroner, happened in September last year. This was 63-year-old Becki Townsend Gun, who was a long-term resident in my local area. It appears from witness accounts that she was trying to take care of her dog who had run onto the train lines not too far away from Clarence Park station, and unfortunately the train collided with her. Once again, the train did not have time to slow down despite the fact that the driver saw her.

That has been a horrible tragedy for my local community as well. That is a quite well-frequented station and a fairly built-up residential area and it has been a tragedy for Becki's family, her loved ones, her colleagues and her neighbours who knew her to know that that horrible incident happened. She was a really lovely person by all accounts and is dearly missed.

This is what happens when rail safety goes wrong, when we have these incidents on our train and tram lines. Although most of us would probably be used to seeing a tram or train go past if we live in an area with a line, sometimes we can fail to accept the risks that are presented by those fast-moving vehicles. We all should obviously keep in mind that, no matter how often we cross the trainline or how familiar we are with the train timetable, these accidents can happen. My thoughts are with the families of those two people.

I must say I did have the opportunity to look back through not just these incidents that have happened in the last eight or nine months but much further back through our history. There is a fairly horrible toll, really, that has been taken along the stretches of rail in my electorate but also across the network in Adelaide. It makes for fairly sobering reading to look at some of the near-misses, injuries and also the fatalities that have happened—hence the need for legislation like this to ensure that we both have a rail safety policy and also that that is well funded and that we have a fee structure that enables this work to be done.

I might just also mention that there is much work being done in my electorate at the moment to try to ensure greater safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. As I mentioned, there was a horrible accident at Clarence Park, but prior to that our government—and also, I must acknowledge, those opposite—made election commitments to upgrade Clarence Park station. It is important to note that that particular incident happened a little further away from the station, but there is a commitment of some many millions of dollars to upgrade safety at Clarence Park station itself, which borders the electorates of Elder and Badcoe.

The commitment there is for pedestrian boom gates. At the moment there is a chicane-type structure, but it is quite harrowing to sit there and watch some things that people do which are hazardous not only to themselves but, as we mentioned before, to drivers of our trains. By putting in electronic boom gates that automatically come down when trains are approaching we will deliver a much higher degree of safety for people who are in the area and a much greater degree of certainty and confidence for drivers as they come through that station.

Not all trains are stopping at that station; some of them are going through. I think sometimes pedestrians and cyclists have a hard time negotiating when a train is slowing down and when it is coming through the station at quite high speed. That is something that the member for Elder and I have campaigned for for a long time. I will acknowledge those opposite as well, who have also campaigned for that change. I am looking forward to that happening. The member for Elder and I have had several meetings already with the department in relation to that infrastructure upgrade and we are pleased that that is happening.

We have also had several meetings in relation to the aesthetics at the station. There will be some painting work done and some lighting, and we are working with our local communities to have some engagement from the local kindergartens to upgrade the look and feel of the station. We obviously want people to be safe, but we want them to feel comfortable and like they want to come and use our public transport network. It is important to us to make sure that those stations are attractive places to be and to wait, and that they are safe, convenient, protected from the rain, and pleasurable places to be for a few minutes while you are waiting for the next service to come along. That work is being done.

Likewise, there is work being done at Woodlands Park station, which is in Edwardstown, to upgrade the look and feel there as well. Some work was done during the last shutdown of the line to upgrade the electronics, and also some structural and foundation work to enable the next step of that upgrade. We will be having some non-slip surfaces, better disability access and lighting at that station, and we are also setting the platform up so that it can take CCTV in future. Although some may think it is charming, that station is a little bit rundown so I am looking forward to a paint job and some new lighting and also some reconfiguring of the shelters to make sure that they are kept in better nick.

We also have money set aside in the budget, some $5 million, for the Goodwood station upgrade. I am working closely with the Forestville community at the moment as part of the Mike Turtur Bikeway overpass project. We will see lighting, CCTV and greater security and safety through the pedestrian underpass as part of that project. The project is very well utilised. The station basically sits in or to the side of Forestville Reserve. Many people would have been to the Unley Swimming Pool over summer; it is a well utilised area of our community and we want to encourage as many people as possible to take public transport there.

It is also worth mentioning that there are grade separations along the tramline happening that will greatly improve safety in my community. There are two significant ones happening at the moment as well as a study into another one which is in Morphett but which will have benefits for the Badcoe community as well.

The Marion-Cross Road grade separation is incredibly important; it is about $400 million worth of state and federal funding, and work is underway right now. There are some preliminary designs that have been released to my community and there is public discussion happening right now. In fact, tomorrow afternoon I will be heading to the Plympton Glenelg RSL for the consultation session being run by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and there is another one the following week that people are encouraged to come along to.

I have also been holding my own opportunities for people to come and see the plans. I have printed out some big artist impressions and some maps so that people can see what is going on there. It is a hotly awaited project and one that is very popular in my community. I am looking forward to delivering that not only for the safety benefits it will deliver in terms of separating the tram from motorists as well as cyclists and pedestrians but also because there will be some available land underneath the overpass.

We are looking for community input as to how that could be best utilised, and so far the most popular suggestions coming from my community are in relation to a community garden; people would like to see more greening in the community. These days a lot more people are living in smaller accommodation and flats, but they would still like to have the benefit of being able to grow some fruit and veggies or some flowers that they like. They are happy to do that with their friends and neighbours and have that communal experience.

So far the community garden is leading the way as the most popular option, but there is plenty of space there and plenty of things we could put in, so I am looking forward to hearing from people tomorrow evening at the RSL as well as through the wider consultation process, which includes an online survey. Obviously people can also give their feedback to their local member if they wish.

The other grade separation that is happening is really a rebuild of stop 6 over South Road. People would probably be familiar with this station: it straddles Black Forest, Everard Park and Glandore and goes over the top of South Road. That station is being rebuilt as part of the South Road project. The sunken roadway will go underneath that bridge, so the pillars and foundations need to be made deeper in that section, which necessitates the removal of that overpass and its rebuilding.

We look forward to that being back maybe not bigger but better, and we are also looking forward to that space underneath the overpass being better utilised in future. Likewise, people would like to see some greening, and there is some opportunity for some taller trees to be planted in there as well as some spaces our community could make good use of.

There are lots of local issues that come up that are raised with me as a local MP, considering that we have those 16 tram and train stations. This is also an opportunity for me to alert the house to some of those considerations and to matters that are raised with me by my local community when it comes to rail safety as well as rail amenity.

By way of declaration, I live right on the rail line; my house faces onto the rail line just metres before it hits Goodwood station. I personally love it. I do not mind the sound of the trains going past. For me it is one of the attractive elements of buying in the area, the convenience of having a train station nice and close. My kittens love it; they love running to the front door and seeing the trains go past.

When I have friends over with little kids they do like sitting out the front and watching the trains go past; it is endlessly entertaining for little ones. On Showground market days you can see the kids lining up along the fence line to wave to the driver. It is part of the whole attraction of going to the Showground markets with kids.

However, I can understand that not everyone loves the sound of a train, and people have raised with me issues in relation to the noise from the signals. My predecessor, the Hon. Steph Key, managed to get the noise turned down a little on the Leader Street signals, which still work just as well and draw people's attention to the oncoming trains, but they are just a little bit easier to deal with for people who live around that intersection. However, we still get people raising that at other points where there are the loud bell signals.

The noise from the freight trains is something that people raise quite a lot. This is both a freight and passenger line. I have written many times to the ARTC making representations on behalf of my constituents, particularly about old, rickety and poorly maintained freight trains, which when they come through at 3 o'clock in the morning make a disproportionate amount of noise, that is beyond the limits of what is permissible under the regulations.

Sometimes the ARTC has been quick to respond, other times not so much. I would encourage the ARTC to respond in a prompt way to local constituents who do have valid concerns, and of course there are rules and regulations in place in relation to the noise that is generated on the train line that, of course, the ARTC has to adhere to.

Signage and asset measures are a point of contention. Some people want more, and some people say there are too many and it is a bit of visual pollution. But there is quite a lot of comment that I get from my community, and feedback, about signage and road markings. People are very concerned that not only motorists but also cyclists and pedestrians are aware of the risks of train lines, but at the same time it is a charming community with charming suburbs right along our train and tram lines, and people also want to make sure that the amenity and attractiveness of their communities are maintained. I frequently have conversations with DIT and ARTC about that.

Lastly, and this is probably a quite common issue that people raise, maintenance along the state and ARTC rail lines in terms of weeds and overgrowth. Obviously, everyone wants to live in a community that they feel is well looked after and attractive, and, of course, particularly after periods of rain we can really see a lot of weeds and overgrowth, and so I thank those entities when I have approached them about general maintenance issues for responding to those concerns raised by local residents.

Another thing that people raise with me quite frequently, and that they are very pleased to see, given the density of public transport in my area, is the fact that Labor is returning the tram and train line operations to public hands. Never have I seen so many people turn up for a street-corner meeting than the first few I had in relation to the privatisation of our train and tram operations. I was inundated with people who were quite concerned about this, and quite concerned that that critical piece of public infrastructure stay wholly in public hands. So, I am delighted—

Mr Tarzia: What about the buses?

Ms STINSON: Yes, you mention the buses; people are concerned about buses as well. They do raise the question of the buses with me, and this government has committed to looking into that as well. Certainly, the tram and train line operations will be coming back into public hands, and that is something that people raised with me at the time it first came up under the previous government and still raise with me to this day, but they are delighted that that work is progressing, that those conversations are going well with Keolis Downer, and that we are going to be seeing those critical services come back into public hands.

I do support this bill. Obviously, it is the latest step—and a critical step—in making sure that we have a good rail safety framework, and I am pleased that South Australia is leading that model legislation. Unfortunately, everything does cost money, but I think that investing and putting aside money and having a proper fee structure for rail safety is incredibly important. I don't think anyone would debate that. Moving to this model, where all states are operating in the same way with this full-cost recovery model from industry operators will be an improvement to the system and I hope will flow through to seeing greater and higher degrees of rail safety in our community. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:28): I rise to speak to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill 2023. As has already been mentioned in this house, this bill seeks to amend a number of sections of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012 in order to complement the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2022. I would like to acknowledge that we are the lead state in this national law, so obviously we need to get this legislation through the parliament.

The bill includes amendments to private sidings, defined as a low-speed section of track which is distinct from a running line. It includes exemptions for accredited persons from the annual fees prescribed by the national regulations and the insertion of a section to increase prescribed fee amounts.

The bill seeks to remove the requirement for tourist and heritage rail operators to pay the annual accreditation or registration fees to the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, and it will amend the definition of the term 'private siding', which will allow rail managers of various freight terminals to be registered instead of accredited, which will result in lower annual registration fees.

The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator prescribes fees relevant to rail infrastructure managers and operators to be paid annually to that body. A new cost-recovery focused model is being introduced, which will amend the way in which accredited operators will pay their relevant prescribed fees, following broader amendments to the national law in late 2022.

At present, an accredited operator is required to pay a fixed annual fee of $15,000, as well as a variable fee annually, based on track kilometres managed, travelled or possibly both. The new model will see an accredited operator pay an annual fee that is based on a risk profile as well as the regulatory effort required from the ONRSR to oversee the operator.

The risk profile will be structured into six tiers, with tier 1 to be considered the highest risk and tier 6 the lowest risk, respectively. Those operators allocated to tier 1 will be subjected to the highest annual fees, based on this risk profile, with those in tier 6 subject to the lowest. There are, however, types of railway operations not included in the six-tier cost-recovery model.

Railway operators that are not included in this six-tier cost-recovery model will be subject to other costing arrangements. This includes tourist and heritage sector railway operations, and accredited tourist and heritage operators are instead subject to a reduced annual fixed fee of $2,000, including the variable annual fee. However, the bill seeks to remove the requirement for tourist and heritage operators to pay annual accreditation or registration fees.

Railway operations defined as less complex railway operations will also be exempt from the six-tier risk model, as they are considered to require less oversight. These operators will instead be subject to an annual fee of $20,000. Additionally, railway operations that manage private sidings will only be required to be registered rather than accredited, on the ground that they also require less oversight. They will be subject to a fee of $5,500.

This bill will amend the definition of private siding to allow various managers of freight terminals to fall under this definition, therefore being subject to the lower fee of $5,500 rather than the considerably higher fees that are incurred under the six-tier model arrangements. The final component of the bill is to insert three new sections in the national law to enable annual increases in fees indexed via movements in the consumer price index.

Railways have made a significant impact on society, on our country and on our state. It is interesting, though, that we have had narrow gauge, broad gauge and standard gauge railway lines put in across our state. Over on the West Coast, there was a narrow gauge system, and there is some debate now at the moment about whether or not that will reopen for grain traffic for Viterra to get their grain railed into Port Lincoln.

I know even at Cummins, which is not that far out of Port Lincoln, there have been a reasonable number of incidents, with trains slipping off the lines and having derailments. Some of this might have been because of the narrow gauge. But over on our side of the world, certainly before 1995, running from Adelaide through to Mount Gambier and through to Bordertown were broad gauge railways.

As a child growing up in the Coomandook area—and that was a little while ago—we saw quite a few trains coming through because of a lot of stock of fertiliser supplies. I have early memories of the grain stacks at Coomandook where grain, once it had come off the headers, was all bagged in those days in the late sixties and was trucked in and huge stacks put up. In the old language, the bag of wheat would weigh 187 pounds, which is probably 90 kilos rounded off in the new metric language.

The bag lumpers, right across the state, had unbelievable strength. Some men would throw a bag over each shoulder. When you think about that, it is a lot of weight. It is unbelievable. Just lumping one bag would have been more than enough for me. There were huge stacks built and they had big bag elevators that would elevate the grain to many levels—probably, 20 high is not enough. It might have been a lot higher than that, but you could get a lot of bags stacked into a railyard.

Apart from that, we saw stock get transported on the rail. All the railheads had stockyards. A lot of the saleyards were next to the railheads and all the local sidings had yards to either send stock out or receive stock because it was the easiest way to do it before people over time got into their own trucks more and more. Even then, they only had little six or eight-tonne trucks that could not cart a lot of stock.

I can remember fertiliser turning up in closed vans and you would have to get it out and load it up onto your truck. Usually, you would have to go up a ramp or something to get it onto your truck. Certainly, as a 17 year old (which was a couple of days ago and a bit) I remember working at the Coomandook silo for a while trucking out grain. Back then, we did not have the bulk carriers that emptied out into grids like you see at silos now. We had the grids, but they did not have the rail freight carriages that were compatible with the grids as such.

It is how fertiliser came down the other way as well from Adelaide. They had flat railcars, obviously with sides on them. The first job you had to do was to get newspaper and fill in all the holes around the four doors—two doors each side—to make sure it did not leak and then load them up with grain. The requirement was eight railcars a day, but we could have that done by nearly 2 o'clock in the afternoon, so we would do a couple more and clean up the situation and then knock off. I note that fertiliser, once it went from bags to bulk, came down the rail line, but again there were systems put in place where there were unloading machines with giant paddles to drag it into a hopper to put it into bags in a shed at the sidings.

But I suppose the closest activity—and I have talked about it in here multiple times before—was in 1995 with the Melbourne to Adelaide rail standardisation project, where along with a friend of mine Mark Elliott, who I also did quite a bit of shearing with, we signed up as contractors to work on that standardisation project. We were making a bit of pre-seeding money. It was before Easter of 1995. Anyway, we got signed up as contractors. As I have said here many times before, it was with actual great shame, and I have said it and I agree that it was the blackest three months of my life, that I had to join the AWU, the Australian Workers' Union, so that I could work there even as a contractor.

Mr Tarzia: It's outrageous.

Mr PEDERICK: It is outrageous. But, anyway, I wanted some money, and I was getting paid well, and I was willing to work, and went on the job. It was a very interesting job because all the concrete sleepers had been put in place with all the extra cleats to shift the line (rail gauge people can google this) about six inches into standard gauge and bring it into a more standardised form across Australia. The wooden sleepers had been replaced from Melbourne to Adelaide, the concrete sleepers had been installed—a big job—and the ballast was in place, and then it was the job to get organised to shift the rail. You do not have to have much rail to have a lot of weight.

What happened was that, for those six weeks leading up to when we did the big move over the Easter weekend, we had an unclipping machine that was actually built for maintenance (so it broke down a bit) and the clips that held the rail to the sleepers were very tightly sprung steel. It was a machine with a Honda motor and it rode up the rails, almost like those old carts you can remember with the hand pumps that run up and down the rail line. One bloke sat on that. You would line it up with a clip, unclip a clip and away you would go.

Over the many, many kilometres of line, probably about 800-odd to Melbourne, that is a lot of clips, and the other bloke would pick up the clips and throw them in a heap so they could be picked up. What happened was that on the straight bits of track we would unclip every other clip, and I am pretty sure we left all the corners in place because this was still like a fully clipped-up line. This was still a fully functioning rail line but, as we unclipped more line, speed restrictions came in place.

This is a pretty popular route, Melbourne to Adelaide, that links through to Perth and also through to Darwin once it links up in Adelaide. We would unclip every other clip, and after a while you might have one clip in four or one clip in six left, but I cannot remember exactly. Obviously, with speed restrictions, they believed the line would stay in place.

Anyway, the time came for the big shift (Easter time), a big crew came through from Murray Bridge, picked me up at Coomandook a bit after five in the morning to get down to the track and we had a bus. We had to move the section from just north of Coonalpyn to south of Keith, between Keith and Bordertown, to do the big shift. There was a lot of manual labour and I got there a bit tentative as to which job we would get.

Mark and I rolled up and the supervisor said, 'Right, you two blokes get back on the unclipping machine,' and I thought, 'Well, thanks for that. That is good,' because there was a lot of manual labour and a lot of bending over with what we called the MARS bar, the Melbourne-Adelaide rail standardisation lift mechanism that would lift the rail to about waist height.

One person would flick one cleat around on the concrete sleeper, one would use a little broom to sweep it off, and that was done in sequence as the bar. There was also a mechanism to lift up the rail. It was quite a unique machine, and I guess about half a dozen people were working on that section to do that. We got into it, and we would get out there unclipping line. It was a unique role because it was the first job I had ever had where if something broke you sat down while the breakdown crew fixed it.

One day, because this unclipping machine would break quite a bit, I am sitting in the supervisor's car and he says, 'Have a look at the documents on the plan on doing the line.' I said, 'Well, what's going on? This says we should only be doing eight kilometres a day and we're doing 16.' He said, 'That's fine. Just keep going.' The beauty of it was that the rail operators—we had done everything we had to do within three days instead of four—celebrated with some light refreshments in the Tintinara Hotel on the Monday because we had moved the line, done our quota.

There is a historic photo—and maybe someone who is listening has a copy of it, because I have not seen it—that is a bit like the Wild West in America when the two teams meet. We did not have a train at each end, but we had crews and equipment and trackers. I remember I stood on the front wheel of a tractor to make sure I could be seen amongst all the many people in the photo. I must chase that photo up and see if someone does have a copy of it.

I guess that is a bit of a long story, but it just goes to show what had to happen. It is still a lot of manual labour to make sure that we can get that rail standardised. I notice some of the rail projects that are going in place in the Eastern States potentially link in with us. Sadly, because of cost factors and maintenance factors, we lost the Mallee lines a couple of years ago. I was proud to be part of the celebration of the centenary of the Pinnaroo line quite a few years ago in the early 2000s.

In respect of the actual bill, I hope that what we can see from it is some of the little tourist and heritage rail operations that may happen. There has been a lot mooted around locally—perhaps a service coming out of Murray Bridge, going out to Karoonda for a lunch or a morning tea and then coming back. It would need a lot of maintenance now and a lot of work. That is the issue with trains. I also acknowledge that roads do take a hammering from freight, but the reality is a lot of rail has gone out of business.

There is a lot of discussion also about rail being used for public transport further out into the regions. I think it would be great if it stacked up. One reason is not so much about cost, although it would be a huge cost to make it stack up. One reason it does not stack up even just getting to Murray Bridge is that it is two hours and 17 minutes to get there from Adelaide. I know people travel on the Overland to Melbourne, but that is more is a bit more of an experience. It is a little bit like the experience if you do the Ghan or the Indian Pacific. I was privileged to do the trip from Darwin once, and it is a very enjoyable trip down to Adelaide.

The reality is you can get to Adelaide in an hour under that, in one hour and 17 minutes, even in a bus from Murray Bridge. I know there has been talk in this place about getting high-speed rail. I know there has been talk with companies from overseas about coming here and trialling trains. They are going to have to shave some time off on the rail, or there are going to have to be some major infrastructure builds. I do not think anyone has the cash to dig a tunnel from Mitcham through to Mount Barker, which would give you a huge opportunity for high-speed trains, or higher speed trains, but it would come at a huge cost.

We see how the government today have pushed back the South Road tunnelling project. That is costing many billions of dollars. It has gone out by $5½ billion. I hate to think what a project tunnelling through to Mount Barker would cost. One thing it would do, if it did happen, is it would open up that rail access to the South-East and also to the south, to Victor Harbor. That is the nexus: you have to get to Mount Barker first.

Years ago I can remember travelling on the Bluebird, which used come out five days a week to Coomandook, and that would take three hours. It would leave Adelaide at 8 o'clock in the morning and get to Coomandook at 11 o'clock. I know other members have spoken here of some of the other trains that were about in the past. The Redhens were fantastic. One of my grandfathers was a conductor at Gawler. We would get on there when the subway was still there. We used to play on it as kids. We would jump on the train. It would be a bit hot. You would slide these great sliding doors off. There was no occupational health and safety. No-one fell out—that I saw, anyway—and it was just a different world, roaring along the line between Gawler and Adelaide with the Redhens.

Certainly, railways have a lot of romance about them, but at the end of the day you have to make them pay. I hope that with this bill we can get the right outcomes, the right regulatory framework so that people are not paying too much, and we get the right framework to make it work for this state as the lead legislator for the country.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:49): I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill 2023. As the minister has outlined in his second reading explanation, this will allow the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator to be funded by way of a new cost recovery model.

As the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law, the passing of this bill implements the 2011 Council of Australian Governments agreement that the national regulators for rail, maritime and heavy vehicles would progress towards a full cost recovery from industry operators. This bill therefore supports the implementation of the new cost-recovery model and associated charges, while also amending the Rail Safety National Law:

to allow a freight terminal to fall within the definition of a private siding;

to remove the requirement for accredited and registered persons to pay a fee when applying to vary their accreditation or registration;

to exempt tourist and heritage operators from the requirement to pay an annual accreditation or registration fee;

to require the National Rail Safety Regulator to ensure that tourist and heritage operators are recorded in the National Rail Safety Register; and

to allow the national regulations to prescribe a method by which accreditation fees, registration fees and exemption fees may be increased each year, and to require the regulator to publish the fees.

Currently, tourist and heritage operators of rail are charged an annual fixed fee of $2,000 in addition to the variable annual fee. These operators, while charged a reduced annual fee, cover very little of the regulatory effort that the sector attracts, covering only about 5 per cent of the cost of regulating the sector, with the remainder of the cost currently being met by commercial operators. Therefore, it was agreed that these costs would fall to governments, including the commonwealth, and are not to be cross-subsidised by commercial operators, which is understandable as currently most tourist and heritage operators have their annual fees paid for by government as a community service obligation.

We know how important these organisations are not only as a drawcard for tourism but for community wellbeing and identity as well. Take for example the Pichi Richi, a train line that I absolutely adored as a young girl and one that continues to be adored by those young and old up north. For those who do not know its heritage, the Pichi Richi was constructed back in the 1870s-80s as the Port Augusta and Government Gums, now known as the Farina railway, which is north of the Flinders Ranges. The line was extended to Oodnadatta in 1891 and further to Alice Springs, some 1,241 kilometres, in 1929, establishing an important rail link to central Australia.

In fact, the famous Ghan passenger train travelled along that line from 1923 to 1956 and on the northern part of that route until the 1980s. Now you can enjoy a full-day or half-day trip aboard a restored steam or heritage diesel train on the original Ghan route between Port Augusta and Quorn on the Pichi Richi railway. I must say, it is absolutely stunning. Imagine watching the gum-lined creeks, bluebush-studded hills and ancient rocky outcrops roll past, truly showcasing our gorgeous outback.

I understand that all trains on the line use historic steam or diesel locomotives, railcars or immaculately restored timber carriages, with some being more than 130 years old. Since 1973, volunteers of the Pichi Richi Railway Preservation Society have continued to proudly restore and run the railway. In fact, this year they celebrate their 50^th year since the society was established. I wish them a very happy anniversary and congratulate them and thank them for all their efforts.

It is because of the volunteering efforts on the Pichi Richi railway that people are able to be taken for the scenic ride from Port Augusta up to Quorn by rail, enjoying our history, just like those who dedicate their time down south to the SteamRanger with a shared sense of enthusiasm for rail, bringing people of all walks of life together to share in their passion and learn from our history.

I understand the SteamRanger operates over 200 days across the year and attracts over 60,000 people annually. I myself experienced a trip some years ago to celebrate a friend's 30^th and thoroughly enjoyed a day visiting local towns, businesses and wineries across the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek regions along the way. Those 60,000 people are a massive boost for local jobs in tourism, accommodation, hospitality and essential services as well as facilitating connection in the community, providing training, education and volunteering opportunities.

On top of all that, the SteamRanger has contributed over $18.5 million of economic activity to the regional economy over a five-year period. I am pleased that, having secured the state government funding of $8.9 million, investment is able to be made in the much-needed remediation works for the SteamRanger, preserving and upgrading this historic railway, which I am sure will help to ensure the SteamRanger can continue to be a joy to many who ride it for generations to come.

I have shared many times in this place that I was raised in Port Pirie, a city that has developed and is iconic due to the industry there: primarily the smelters, the wharves and grains, and all of the support industries that have developed over the years to feed into the sectors. Without our train lines, these industries would not be what they are today.

As such, I am pleased that industry representatives have been an integral part of the model's development, that the regulator reports that discussions with operators on the financial impacts of the new model during 2021 and 2022 were extremely constructive and that even though many commercial operators will be paying higher fees, they understand and accept the logic and the application of the model that is being applied, because the reality is that currently four Australian jurisdictions are not operating at full cost recovery in relation to rail safety, and there is nothing more important than safety. We are addressing this in a fair and balanced manner.

I understand that the new model will pull together the risk profile scores and data on regulatory effort collected by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, and group commercial operators into six cost-recovery tiers. The tier amounts will be set out in the Rail Safety National Law National Regulations 2012 (national regulations), and the operators allocated to tier 1 will be those that have the highest risk profile and attract the most regulatory effort. As such, the operators in tier 1 will pay the highest annual fee, while the operators in tier 6 will pay the lowest amount. I understand that there is also capacity for operators to appeal if they believe they have been allocated to an inappropriate cost-recovery tier.

I appreciate that there is a desire from industry across our country to have this new cost recovery model and the associated charges operational from 1 July this year. I appreciate that, as lead legislator in this space, it is up to South Australia to get this done, and as such I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:57): I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill 2023. Before I get into it, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the member from the other side of the house, in which he claimed that having to join the AWU was outrageous, and in the same sentence said, 'But I was getting paid really well.' Can I just have it noted that the reason you were paid well was the union movement. Just as South Australia was a leader in giving women the right to vote—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Ms CLANCY: I just thought you would be excited that I was listening to you, member for Hammond.

Mr Pederick: I am pleased.

Ms CLANCY: Yes, someone has to. Just as South Australia was a leader in giving women the right to vote and run for parliament, and South Australia has been a leader in renewable energy, our state is also the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law. The bill before us today implements the 2011 Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) agreement that the national regulators for rail, maritime and heavy vehicles would progress towards full cost recovery from industry operators. COAG set the following principles to guide the development of the cost-recovery model:

the model be transparent;

fees should be based on a national model;

fees should be reflective of and proportionate to rail transport operator risk classification;

fees should be aligned with the regulator's regulatory effort—the regulator is the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR);

cross-subsidisation should be avoided. However, cross-subsidisation, if used, must be transparent; and

the model should be simple to administer.

What this bill does is make amendments to the Rail Safety National Law that are required to support the implementation of the new cost-recovery model and associated changes.

While much of the detail of the new model can be implemented by amending the Rail Safety National Law National Regulations 2012, the Rail Safety National Law needs to be amended to:

remove the requirement for accredited and registered persons to pay a fee when applying to vary their accreditation or registration;

exempt tourist and heritage operators from the requirement to pay an annual accreditation or registration fee;

require the National Rail Safety Regulator to ensure that tourist and heritage operators are recorded in the National Rail Safety Register; and

allow the national regulations to prescribe a method by which accreditation fees, registration fees and exemption fees may be increased each year and to require the regulator to publish these fees.

We are hoping this bill is passed in both houses, to come into operation on 1 July this year. The regulator has engaged with industry on the cost-recovery model, so industry is already aware of this targeted commencement date. It is important to note that this engagement by the regulator has been comprehensive. The consultation process was one of significant engagement with industry since 2018 via a reference group, workshops and meetings with individual operators as well as governments. This included:

a review of cost-recovery models in other industries and rail internationally to identify any learnings for a model based on a risk and regulatory effort;

development of a risk profiling tool for use in cost recovery;

collection of regulatory effort data for use in cost recovery;

fee modelling; and

consideration of policy issues associated with any change to the regulator's cost-recovery model.

A number of key policy issues were identified as the project progressed, including current areas of cross-subsidisation, the treatment of the tourist and heritage sector and less complex rail operations.

The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator conducted four formal stakeholder consultation phases. Stage 1, which occurred between September and October 2020, consisted of chief executive briefings. Stage 2, which occurred between November and December 2020, consisted—I am sorry, the member for Badcoe is making me laugh.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Stinson): I am sorry, member for Elder. I am making you laugh.

Ms CLANCY: Rail safety is not a laughing matter. Stage 2 consisted of risk profiling workshops and information sessions. Stage 3 occurred in December 2020, when the regulator released its cost-recovery consultation paper—I am sorry, member for Hammond.

Mr Pederick: You don't have to apologise to me.

Ms CLANCY: Who knew that all these stages of consultation were so hilarious? Stage 4, which occurred from June 2021 to 2022, consisted of one-on-one meetings with larger commercial operators and group sessions for smaller and less complex operators on the financial impacts of the model. In addition, drafting instructions were circulated to industry representatives for consultation from 8 to 17 June 2022. Draft legislation was also circulated to industry and union representatives, member for Hammond, for consultation from 7 to 21 September 2022.

In addition to industry consultation, the regulator met with commonwealth, state and territory government representatives during 2018, 2019 and 2021 to socialise the cost-recovery model, update governments on its progress, and discuss funding of the tourist and heritage sector. As is evident through this extensive consultation process, industry representatives have been an integral part of the model's development—as they should be.

The regulator reported that discussions with operators on the financial impacts of the new model during 2021 and 2022 were extremely constructive, and even though many commercial operators will be paying higher fees they understood and accepted the logic and the application of the model.

The main feature of the new cost-recovery model is that commercial rail transport operators will pay an annual accreditation fee based on their risk profile and the regulatory effort expended by the regulator. The main difference between the new model and the existing cost-recovery arrangements is the method used to calculate the annual accreditation fee payable by a commercial rail transport operator. Currently, an accredited commercial operator is required to pay a fixed annual fee of $15,000 as well as a variable annual fee that is based on track kilometres managed and track kilometres travelled or both.

Under the new cost-recovery model a commercial operator will pay one annual accreditation fee that is based on the operator's risk profile and the regulatory effort required from the regulator to oversee the operator and other operators with a similar risk profile. The risk profile of an accredited rail transport operator will be calculated using the risk profiling tool developed by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator. The new cost-recovery model will completely remove the need for governments to subsidise the cost of regulating the safety of the commercial rail industry.

In terms of tourist and heritage operators, under the current arrangements tourist and heritage operators are charged a reduced annual fixed fee of $2,000 in addition to the variable annual fee. Most of these operators have their annual fees paid for by government, so they cover very little of the regulatory effort the sector attracts. In fact, tourist and heritage fees cover only about 5 per cent of the cost of regulating the sector. The remainder of the cost is currently met by commercial operators.

Given this, it was agreed by infrastructure and transport ministers that the cost of regulating tourist and heritage operators would fall to all governments, including the commonwealth, and would not be cross subsidised by the commercial operators. This means the subsidisation of the tourist and heritage sector by commercial operators will be significantly reduced under the new arrangements.

Under these changes, the states, territories and the commonwealth will pay a total of $4.9 million towards the cost of regulating tourist and heritage operators. South Australia's contribution to cover tourist and heritage operations will be just 4.81 per cent of the $4.9 million national contribution to the regulator, as agreed in May 2021.

As the member for Elder, I am very lucky to have an electorate connected to three train lines: the Seaford line, which I share with the member for Badcoe; the Flinders line, which I guess when I come to think of it I do not get to have all by myself but share with the member for Davenport; and a teeny bit of the Belair line, which I share with the member for Unley and the member for Waite. I love that, because of another election promise being delivered, all seniors can currently use these trainlines and all other public transport services for free all the time.

When the former Liberal government announced their privatisation of our trains and trams, I was proud to stand in solidarity with workers and commuters campaigning for the privatisation not to go ahead, getting petitions signed by hundreds of people on many early mornings. Sadly, the government of the time ignored the pleas of the community and went ahead with the privatisation. However, now I get to stand proud as a member of the Malinauskas Labor government, a government committed to reversing this privatisation.

Our first budget included $1 million to fund a commission of inquiry to advise the government on the return of trains and trams into public ownership. Thanks to positive early negotiations, Keolis Downer and the government now have the same objective, and the rail operations will be returned to public hands. Other commitments in the track space—boom tish—include:

$55.1 million for reinstating the construction and operation of a port rail spur for the Outer Harbor line;

$29.4 million for improving services to Mount Barker and the Adelaide Hills;

$10 million to optimise the operation of the automated protection system on the Seaford line;

$2 million to upgrade the Noarlunga Interchange;

$1.5 million to install an activated pedestrian rail crossing near Kilkenny Primary School;

$1.4 million to ensure the continued running of the Overland train service between Adelaide and Melbourne;

$530,000 to construct a car park and kiss-and-ride space adjacent to the Tambelin Railway Station;

$500,000 to install CCTV at West Croydon Railway Station—

I could just go on and on—

416,000 for investigations into how to better integrate public transport opportunities in regional areas; and

locally, we are upgrading Woodlands Park train station and Clarence Park train station. Preliminary work has started on both, and the member for Badcoe and I are working together with the minister, his office and the department on the progress of these upgrades.

I am proud of our government's work in transport, in particular rail, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (17:09): I rise to speak on the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Fees) Amendment Bill. The amendments to the Rail Safety National Law will allow the office of the National Rail Safety Regulator to be funded by way of a new cost-recovery model, easing the burden placed on Australian states and territories. Put simply, these amendments present a better deal for taxpayers right across Australia.

While legislation passes in South Australia, this new model will operate nationally and minimise the need for cross-subsidisation across rail sectors. It will apply full cost-recovery to commercial rail transport operators and take into full consideration both their risk and regulatory efforts. Currently, four Australian jurisdictions, not including South Australia, are not operating at full rail safety cost recovery. This has resulted in the affected jurisdictions contributing a sum of more than $10 million towards the cost of regulating commercial operators.

Under the new model, these jurisdictions will no longer be required to provide this funding. As the lead legislator for Rail Safety National Law, amendments passed by this parliament will apply in all states and territories, with the exception of WA. The new model sees a significant change to the methods used for calculating annual fees payable by rail transport operators. Currently, an accredited operator is required to pay a fixed annual fee of $15,000 in addition to a variable annual fee based on track kilometres managed, track kilometres travelled, or both.

Under the new model, cost recovery will take the form of a single annual accreditation fee that is calculated against an operator's risk profile and the efforts required of the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator for oversight. Risk profile in turn will be measured against the three primary components of inherent risk: management and control and safety performance. Subsequently, the new model will see commercial operators characterised into six cost-recovery tiers.

Operators allocated to tier 1 will be those assessed as having the highest risk profile and attracting increased regulatory effort. This will result in a higher annual fee than operators carrying a lower risk profile in a balanced and equitable system. In instances where an operator believes its classification to be incorrect, they retain the right to appeal their categorisation. Most importantly, this model will negate the need for governments to subsidise rail safety regulation costs, presenting a saving for Australian taxpayers in excess of $10 million.

As lead legislator, the passage of this amendment bill through the South Australian parliament will come to the benefit of people living in jurisdictions, including the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, with savings on regulatory expenses meaning funding becomes available for vital public services and infrastructure. Further to changes where commercial operators are concerned, the requirement for accredited and registered persons to pay a fee when applying to vary their accreditation or registration will be removed—putting hard earned back into the pockets of affected individuals.

In addition, the bill will exempt tourist and heritage operators from the existing requirements to pay an annual accreditation or registration fee and require these tourist and heritage operators to be recorded on the National Rail Safety Register. This is important because when I think about rail in this state I think about tourism. I think about people boarding a train in Victoria bound for South Australia, ready to take in all that our incredible state has to offer.

We have seen record-breaking activity in South Australia in recent months driven by the return of the Adelaide 500 to our streets, a Fringe season that saw one million tickets sold, the AFL's inaugural Gather Round, which South Australia will proudly continue to host, and the LIV Golf tournament at Grange. We know for a fact that people travelling to these major events did not come just by car or by plane: they also came by rail.

While major events attracted tourists to South Australia in the first instance, we know they stayed here for our regions. They took in the Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley. They travelled to Monarto, Hahndorf and Victor Harbor. For some, these opportunities arose after travelling to South Australia on the Overland, which for many remains the most enjoyable and most practical means of transport between Melbourne and Adelaide and everywhere in between.

The service has operated since 1887—135 years of travel between two capital cities—taking in the sights and sounds of Australia's oldest regional towns where, of course, travellers hop off, spend money and support small businesses. There is a certain romance that comes with travelling through the countryside on a train, a romance we can ill afford to lose. Approximately 9,000 passengers travel on this service each year at present, and I am confident that we are not far off returning to the Overland's pre-COVID patronage of 30,000 travellers each year.

The Overland services more than just tourists though, providing a vital and reliable transport link between communities in regional South Australia, including Murray Bridge and Bordertown. These rail links will be of particular importance as we prepare for considerable growth in our regions. The Overland also provides an avenue for those travelling from Melbourne to connect with the Indian Pacific service to Perth and the world-renowned Ghan journey. It is a bucket list item for so many retirees travelling across our great country.

The Adelaide to Melbourne route was historically supported by funding from both the Victorian and South Australian governments, with the Overland's continued operation dependent on Great Southern Rail receiving funding from the state government. That is why so many were left scratching their heads when a cruel Liberal funding cut almost brought the Overland to its knees. Disappointingly, under the former Liberal government this longstanding, reliable and unique travel route between South Australia and Victoria was under threat of collapse.

The former Marshall Liberal government refused to execute a crucial funding agreement, and in 2018 people were told bookings for the Overland could be halted. Thankfully, the Victorian Labor government stepped in, as it needed to, and the Overland continues operations today. With a Labor government in South Australia, you can rest assured support for the Overland will continue into the future.

In contrast to the previous Liberal government, we want people to come here. We know the important role that the Overland plays in supporting our state's tourism industry. We want to support small businesses, the hospitality industry and the arts. We want people to come and see our state. We want people to explore our wine regions, visit our world-class restaurants and take in our pristine beaches and coastal towns. We want people from Victoria to jump on a train and attend events like the Adelaide 500, which the government worked so hard to return to our streets.

How fortunate we were to invite the rest of the country to our state for the AFL's inaugural Gather Round, the first event of its kind, brilliantly showcasing both our city and the regions, dragging people to every corner of South Australia. It is a credit to our Premier to have secured such an opportunity, and it is a credit to South Australians that Gather Round will be returning to our proud state for the next three years.

As well as the beloved Overland, we also have the iconic SteamRanger, the famous Cockle Train and the renowned Pichi Richi Railway. My children have fond memories of travelling on the Cockle Train with their grandparents. It was always a special occasion for them, riding aboard a proper steam train as it travelled throughout the picturesque Fleurieu Peninsula region on Adelaide's oldest steel railed railway, and of course at the end of the line hopping off to enjoy beautiful Victor Harbor.

In South Australia, we are lucky to have so many tourism drawcards, and it is fantastic to see the rest of the world begin to recognise this. When we discuss this bill and our railways, we of course cannot forget our suburban trains and the dedicated passenger service assistants and train drivers who work on our currently privatised suburban railway. These workers support vital transport services and often go above and beyond to help members of the community.

Just this morning, a member of my team witnessed a train driver exit the cabin, set up a ramp and take the time to personally assist a commuter with mobility issues board the train. He did it with a smile and a cheerful, 'I will check on you at arrival.'

It is pleasing to see that $10 million has already been spent to optimise the operation of the automated protection system on the Seaford line. The Seaford line services the whole of Adelaide's south, and I am proud to form part of a government that actively considers the transport needs and wants of every person in every corner.

Alongside investment in the Seaford railway line, the state government is delivering $2 million for the much-needed and long overdue upgrade of the Noarlunga Interchange, a critical piece of southern Adelaide's public transport network. We are investing in preserving our heritage as well, which is why we have committed $9 million to deliver essential upgrades for the SteamRanger Heritage Railway that services our beautiful south coast. This is an important bill. Put simply, it is a better, more cost-effective and more supportive model for our nation's rail services. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:19): I would like to thank all the participants for their valued contributions to this important piece of legislation. South Australia has a heavy responsibility when it comes to these national reforms. We are the lead legislator, not only for energy but also for rail safety and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. So South Australia, being at the crossroads of the nation, between our Western Australian cousins and our New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland cousins, is an important legislator.

This parliament has taken this responsibility incredibly seriously and we have done so now for over a decade. We have done it because we believe in the federation and we believe passionately in states' rights and also because we are uniquely blessed amongst other nations: we are a country with a continent to ourselves. We border no other nation, and it is important that the six states and of course our territories cooperate in a way that allows for the seamless passage of freight and our citizens and trade across our borders. It has served our nation well, making our economy one of the great examples of a flourishing economy anywhere in the world.

I thought I would point out a few things before I close. I want to thank the opposition. This is always difficult for an opposition. These changes are debated and finalised amongst governments that are a part of the transport minister's council or the national cabinet or whatever COAG arrangement is in place at any one time, which does not include oppositions. The bill then comes to this parliament for passage and on the basis of the national agreement, the opposition, being a loyal opposition no matter who they are, have always granted passage to these legislative reforms.

Oppositions, as I was just a few months ago, get lobbied by industry sometimes to make changes to national reforms. They are in a unique position, and it is difficult for them to often have to say, 'Look, we believe in the COAG process—the national reform process. We allow ministers to make these decisions at a national level and we support these projects.' Of course, that does not mean that that support is binding on a change of government. They of course can advocate for changes to these laws.

They can change them so that they do not reflect their views when they come to office if they have state-based regimes, but ultimately it is difficult to know that whatever their personal positions are they are going to support this legislation. I am not saying that they outsource their thinking to others. It is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that they are putting the nation above their own interests, so for that, I thank them. It is difficult. It has been a longstanding tradition of this parliament that that is how we behave, and I think it is a credit to them and to this parliament that the opposition, no matter who it is, is loyal to the country.

The bill makes amendments to the Rail Safety National Law that are required to support the implementation of a new cost recovery model and a series of associated changes, as many of the speakers have previously said. It is an important piece of legislation. While much of the detail of the new model will be implemented by amending the Rail Safety National Law Regulations 2012, the Rail Safety National Law needs to be amended:

to allow a freight terminal to fall within the definition of a private siding;

to remove the requirement for accredited and registered persons to pay a fee when applying to vary their accreditation or registration;

to exempt tourism and heritage operators from requirements to pay an annual accreditation or registration fee—this is very, very important as the previous speakers indicated;

to require the National Rail Safety Regulator to ensure that tourism and heritage operators are recorded in the National Rail Safety Register; and

to allow the national regulations to prescribe a method by which accreditation fees, registration fees and exemption fees may be increased each year and to require the regulator to publish those fees.

When do we want this bill to come into operation? The bill has been drafted so that amendments will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. I am advised by ONRSR, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, that their strong preference is for the bill to come into operation on 1 July this year and that is something that we will be aiming towards. This would align with the expectations of the infrastructure and transport ministers meeting and the rail industry, which I think everyone in this house is keen to do. However, as I said earlier, that relies on the bill being passed through both houses of parliament in a timely manner.

If, for whatever reason, the parliament delays, and the bill is not passed in time for it to commence on 1 July, then ONRSR will have to consider other options available to it. These include extending the operation of the existing cost recovery arrangements and seeking the approval of responsible ministers of the infrastructure and transport ministers meeting to increase existing fees for the next financial year 2023-24; or we could introduce the new six-tier fee structure for annual fees for accredited operators as well as a less complex railway operation annual fee.

This would be possible because the fees can be introduced by amending the Rail Safety National Law regulations or by increasing the application for fees for accreditation, registration, exemptions, by amended national regulations. We do have to amend the act to achieve these changes. It is, of course, a new cost recovery model so we do need to change the law.

I think it is important that we just briefly touch on what the amendments actually are. The amendments are required set out a formula that determines whether, and by how much, certain fees will be indexed on 1 July of each and every year commencing from July 2024; increase to the application fees for accreditation and variations of conditions or restrictions applying to accreditation; for registration and variation of conditions or restrictions of registrations; and for exemptions, variations of exemptions, and the variation of conditions and restrictions of exemptions; and, also, to set the new less complex railway operations annual fee of $20,000 and specify the criteria that the National Rail Safety Regulator must be satisfied to apply in respect to railway operations carried out by applicants.

The national regulations will also need to be amended to set the annual fee amounts for the six tiers that most accredited rail transport operators will be allocated to; to set out a method by which the fee for each tier will be calculated; and to set out the process by which the accredited operator will be assigned one of the six tiers, including the methodology for determining an operator's risk profile; and, importantly, to allow for a decision of the regulator regarding the less complex railway operations annual fee.

Why is ONRSR doing this? They were tasked by infrastructure and transport ministers with developing a national cost-recovery model based on risk and regulatory effort. The pricing risk is very important in rail. It is important that we actually reward good behaviour, we reward good safety practices, we reward companies that are actually doing the right thing so this is a way of us attempting to do that. When I see the member for Adelaide nodding in agreement, that reassures me that we are on the right track.

What is the main feature, you might ask, of this new cost recovery? Thank you for asking, member for Lee. The whip is very inquisitive indeed, getting us to that all important 5.30 mark. The main feature of the new cost recovery model is that the commercial rail transport operators will pay an annual accreditation fee based on their risk profile, and the regulatory effort expended by the ONRSR. The ONRSR acronym, of course, is the Office of National Rail Safety Regulator, for those who are interested.

This will completely remove the need for governments to subsidise the cost of regulating the safety of the commercial rail industry. Why is that important? Valuable tax dollars should be going towards important critical services like health and education and infrastructure. These are precious, precious dollars. People who are involved in this commercial industry can afford to pay for their own regulation. This is an important, important reform.

There are differences between the current model and the model we are moving towards. I know members are keen in anticipating what those differences are, so what I thought I would do is highlight them to the house. The main difference between the new model and the existing cost recovery arrangements is the method used to calculate the annual accreditation fee payable by a commercial rail transport operator. This is complex and important for us to unlock.

Currently, an accredited commercial operator is required to pay a fixed annual fee of $15,000 as well as a variable annual fee that is based on track kilometres managed, track kilometres travelled, or both. Under our new model, the new cost-recovery model, a commercial operator will pay one annual accreditation fee that is based on the operator's risk profile and the regulatory effort required by Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) to oversee the operator and other operators with a similar risk profile.

This makes intuitive sense to me, and I can see the shadow minister in strong agreement with me. I can see my powers of persuasion are winning him over as we speak. With those few words, I thank the house for its indulgence and the speedy passage of this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.