<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2015-05-12" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="645" />
  <endPage num="681" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill</name>
      <bills>
        <bill id="s3757">
          <name>Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill</name>
        </bill>
      </bills>
      <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000331">
        <heading>Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000332">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000333">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000334">(Continued from 26 March 2015.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="1820" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Leader of the Opposition</electorate>
          <startTime time="2015-05-12T16:15:04" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000335">
            <timeStamp time="2015-05-12T16:15:04" />
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:15):</by>  I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. This bill contains several administrative 'tidy-ups' and a number of uncontroversial changes. I am informed by our shadow transport minister that there has been stakeholder consultation and no significant issues have been raised.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000336">Throughout my time in parliament, our rail system has seen a significant statutory overhaul. The rail safety bill of 2007 implemented the national rail safety bill of 2006, developed by the National Transport Commission. The bill was unanimously approved by transport ministers throughout the Australian Transport Council, and was part of the process to implement a nationally-consistent framework of regulation of all rail safety across the national rail network over the proceeding five years. The opposition supported the bill without question.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000337">During my time as the shadow minister for transport in 2009-10, the rail commissioner bill was passed, which adhered us, supposedly more closely than any other state, to the National Transport Commission's model rail safety legislation. The multitude of changes culminated in the need for a government to determine who would effectively manage and control the new rail infrastructure projects, such as the electrification and extension projects in the 2008 budget. That is how the Rail Commissioner came about.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000338">In 2012, we replaced the state Rail Safety Act 2007 with the rail safety national law bill, as part of the national reform to abolish the state rail regulators and establish a national regulator. Given that SA legislation was the most consistent with the model law, we were nominated by COAG to be the lead state on the legislation. With such a significant overhaul of our rail legislation, it is unsurprising that some changes are necessary, as the legislation proves its areas of efficiency and otherwise.</text>
          <page num="669" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000339">In summary, the changes in the bill are as follows. A number of amendments refer to a change in language—'cancel' rather than 'revoke' as requested by the industry. Section 20(4) is deleted, removing the requirement for the regulator to issue notice to compel an operator to appear before them. This is to prevent collusion. The time frame for issuing notice allowed operators time to collude before the hearing.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000340">Section 76 is amended to make it an express requirement to pay accreditation fees. An operator can be suspended for failing to pay the fees. An addition to section 96 compels a rail infrastructure manager to give the regulator an annual activity statement. This will help the regulator to maintain oversight and safety standards without as many site visits.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000341">Further, amendment to section 12 clarifies that operating under the influence of alcohol can be determined by a breath test, but there will be no changes to actual practice. Amendment to section 148 for 'general person on entry', deleting 'structure' and substituting 'rail infrastructure' keeps this section in line with the rest of the act. An addition to section 168A grants a rail safety officer the power to compel an operator to produce documents and finally an addition to section 214 allows an exemption of accreditation fees for tourist operators.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000342">As I outlined, we have had significant change to rail law since the time I was elected from 2007 onwards—an eight or nine-year period now—and it is not surprising that there is always some little bit of tweaking that needs to go on to keep the language consistent with the other states.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000343">I am pleased that the insertion of the last point that I made reference to allows an exemption of accreditation fees for tourism operators. A Barossa wine train has been sitting in mothballs for a very long time. I am not sure whether that is ever going to come out of mothballs, but I know that one of the issues around that train was in relation to some of the fees.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000344">I am not sure exactly what accreditation fees will be exempt for tourist operators, but I know there was some fee and we will probably put this through the minister. I see there are a couple of advisers sitting waiting, and we might just ask a question of the minister at clause 1 in the committee stage just to see whether that does help in giving some explanation as to the type of accreditation fees that will be exempted for tourist operators. With those few comments, I indicate that the opposition is happy to support the bill.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4564" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <startTime time="2015-05-12T16:19:58" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000345">
            <timeStamp time="2015-05-12T16:19:58" />
            <by role="member" id="4564">The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:19):</by>  I rise today to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The Office of the National Safety Regulator is an independent body established under the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. The primary objective of the regulator is to encourage and enforce safe rail operations and to promote and improve national rail safety.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000346">Following the leadership of the then federal minister for transport Mr Anthony Albanese and the then South Australian transport minister Patrick Conlon, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was established in Adelaide in July 2012 and commenced operations on 20 January 2013. The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has responsibility for regulatory oversight of rail safety law in the jurisdictions of South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000347">Following the operation of the regulator, the need for some minor technical amendments became apparent over time. The minor amendments in this bill were put to the Transport and Infrastructure Council ministers' meeting held on 7 November 2014. The responsible ministers approved the bill, without any alteration, for introduction to the South Australian parliament at that meeting. It forms part of an amended package, which was developed in conjunction with and with the support of jurisdictions, industry associations and the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union. The amendments are minor in nature and do not represent a material policy shift. As the national lead legislator, South Australia is responsible for the passage of the bill, and I commend the bill to the house.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation</electorate>
          <startTime time="2015-05-12T16:22:21" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000348">
            <timeStamp time="2015-05-12T16:22:21" />
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:22):</by>  I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions in relation to this relatively uncontroversial bill. I particularly thank the Hon. David Ridgway, who has held the transport portfolio for the Liberal Party and who has a great deal of familiarity with many of these issues. I also thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, who is a very well-known train enthusiast, for his contribution on this bill.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000349">Bill read a second time.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Committee Stage</name>
        <page num="670" />
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000350">
          <heading>Committee Stage</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000351">In committee.</text>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000352">Clause 1.</text>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000353">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  In relation to the last amendment I referred to in my second reading speech, which was that tourism operators be exempt from accreditation fees, I know that there were some issues around the wine train. There was a reasonable amount of money that would be required for what I thought was accreditation, so I am interested to know whether that has an impact on the Barossa Wine Train.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000354">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  I can provide the honourable member with this advice: it could apply for the waiver of fees for accreditation under this scheme, for an application for exemption it could apply for the waiver of fees. Does that answer your question?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000355">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  Let's be hypothetical. Let's say it is the operator or owner of the Barossa Wine Train. There is an accreditation fee of about $50,000 or $100,000, I think, quite a significant amount of money. It seems like an awful lot of money to get a train accredited. Is this the type of fee that the state government would exempt to allow the operator to get back on the rails to do some tourism work, rather than have to come up with $50,000 or $100,000 for accreditation?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000356">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  I am informed that it provides the power to waive the fee for the application for the exemption. So this gives the power to waive the fee that is payable on the application for an exemption.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000357">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  So it waives the application fee but not the actual fee for the accreditation?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000358">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  The regulator can already waive fees for accreditation. This new power gives the power to waive the fee for the application for exemption. So there is already the power to waive the fee for the accreditation; this gives the power to waive the fee for the application for the exemption for accreditation.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000359">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  If the operator or owner of the Barossa Wine Train wanted to get it up and rolling out of the Barossa, the government of the day could waive the fee for accreditation.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000360">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  The regulator could make the decision to waive that, yes.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000361">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  If the regulator does not waive the fee, who is it actually paid to?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000362">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  The fee is paid to the regulator.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000363">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  Does the minister or the minister's adviser have any idea as to the magnitude or size of a potential accreditation fee for the Barossa Wine Train?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000364">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  If the honourable member is happy, we could take that on notice and get back to the member with the exact details.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000365">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  Alright. If it is the regulator who can waive the fee for a tourism operator, what criteria or circumstances would allow the regulator to exercise that discretion? Is it just a matter of how they feel on the day or is there a set of circumstances or a checklist for reasons to waive the fee?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000366">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  It would be on the individual merit of the application that is made for the exemption, but I will go away and bring back more exact answers. If you have a specific case, I am sure we can talk about the fees or how it might apply in an individual case.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000367">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  When an applicant applies for accreditation, what is actually checked off for them to be accredited? What are the requirements to achieve accreditation?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="4697">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000368">
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER:</by>  I am informed that section 65 of the act spells out what an applicant must demonstrate for accreditation but, again, I am happy to ask the department to provide the specific details of what the act provides and how it has been applied.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1820">
          <name>The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <page num="671" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000369">
            <by role="member" id="1820">The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY:</by>  Okay.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000370">Clause passed.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000371">Remaining clauses (2 to 25) and title passed.</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000372">Bill reported without amendment.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Third Reading</name>
        <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000373">
          <heading>Third Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <talker role="member" id="4697" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. K.J. MAHER</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation</electorate>
          <startTime time="2015-05-12T16:32:29" />
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000374">
            <timeStamp time="2015-05-12T16:32:29" />
            <by role="member" id="4697">The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:32):</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000375">
            <inserted>That this bill be now read a third time.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="201505128c3dab517b4e42deb0000376">Bill read a third time and passed.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>