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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 April 2019.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (12:02): I am the lead speaker in this place on behalf of the opposition. What the minister has brought into this parliament are some fundamental reforms that should be supported by this parliament, and we will be doing so. We will support them despite some of the initial objections by our Victorian colleagues, which were about provisions regarding the nature of urine testing. It is important to know that, as you cross jurisdictions, there is a consistency of urine analysis and drug testing procedures for legal purposes.

The opposition thinks these are good reforms. I congratulate the council and I congratulate the minister. This legislation was not developed by the state government or by the cabinet; it was developed nationally. When legislation is developed nationally, the Council of Australian Governments comes together and makes decisions about whether the reforms should be implemented. All other jurisdictions rely on the South Australian parliament to be the national lead legislator on this matter. It is a credit to both sides of this parliament that we are able to put our political differences aside and allow a process that occurs outside our state and our parliament to help dictate our laws for the greater good.

There were some people at the introduction of the process of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) who were opposed to the idea of allowing external bodies to dictate what legislation we would pass. Ultimately, the legislation before us today has been agreed to by government cabinet and will be agreed to by both houses of state parliament. There is no compulsion on us. What it shows is that we can work together to come up with very good solutions.

The operation of the national law is routinely monitored by the National Transport Commission, the rail regulator and the jurisdictions to ensure its effectiveness and identify the need for any other minor administrative amendments that may be required to better facilitate the operation of the national law.

As part of this process, the bill contains the following routine amendments: the ability to allow the rail regulator to access the use of private sector auditing, as approved by council for the purposes of auditing the rail regulator's annual financial statements; amending definitions in section 4 of 'level crossing' and 'rail' or' road' crossing and deleting the definition of 'railway crossing' to ensure consistency in the national law; the creation of penalties for public road managers who fail in their risk management duties at a road or rail crossing, consistent with the penalties for a rail infrastructure manager in section 107(1) for the same offences; providing the rail regulator with the explicit ability to enter premises for drug and alcohol testing; substitution of the deleted 'railway crossing' with 'level crossing' in section 200.

The legislation is about drug and alcohol management and defining what constitutes a urine test. The methodology and the thinking behind this should be applauded. The freedom of information legislation amendments, I think, speak for themselves. A consistent approach across jurisdictions makes sense.

The maintenance amendments are very simple and go to the ability to allow the rail regulator to access the use of private sector auditing. We have no problem with that. It is a good cost saving measure and allows a bit more nimbleness, if you like, by the regulator by not requiring a wait on government auditing processes for the purpose of auditing the rail regulator's annual financial statements. I understand that the rail regulator does impose levies to regulate the industry, so it is important that those finances are audited appropriately.

Also, allowing the regulator the explicit ability to enter premises for drug and alcohol testing is a good idea. The consequences of someone using this type of machinery, or its associated machinery, under the influence of drugs or alcohol could, of course, be life-threatening and damage a very important industry that is the lifeblood of so many regional communities and the lifeblood of so many communities across the nation.

As I stated earlier, the Labor opposition will support this process through all stages in both houses of parliament speedily. I understand that this process began a long time ago, and the slowness of the process of national reforms is unfortunate. One of the great things about our parliament is that once those reforms are agreed, we have a speedy passage to get it started. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (12:07): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which amends the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. The national law came into operation on 20 January 2013, and the bill before us represents the fourth amendment package of that national law.

The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was established as a body corporate under that national law. At the time, the national law was approved in 2012 by the Council of Australian Governments. COAG also requested a review of the current drug and alcohol legislative requirements. The scope of that review was approved by COAG in 2012.

The review assessed and compared the effectiveness in detecting drugs and alcohol present by rail safety workers and provided a deterrent for them against differing legislative arrangements in relation to drug and alcohol management across industry here and internationally. That review was completed in 2017 and considered at COAG in May 2018. The review provided the genesis for this package of amendments to the national law before us. The proposed bill intends to insert new provisions in relation to drug and alcohol testing, as well as providing an additional exemption to releasing documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill will also implement routine amendments arising from the national law maintenance. South Australia is the host state for the rail safety national law, and as lead legislator is therefore responsible, in this first instance, for the passage of the national law and any subsequent amendment bills throughout parliament, along with any consequent regulations that underpin the national law.

Once this bill passes the South Australian parliament, each participating jurisdiction has an application act that will automatically adopt the national law and subsequent amendments into the legislation of those jurisdictions. The one exception is, of course, Western Australia, which requires its own parliament to first consider all amendments to the national law before it can be adopted by the Western Australian parliament.

Crucially, this bill sets out changes in relation to how the National Safety Regulator, which has its national headquarters in Adelaide, can perform drug and alcohol testing. Currently, under section 127 of the national law, the regulator can already test railway workers for the presence of illicit drugs and alcohol. Amendments to the bill include the ability to require urine testing as an alternative method of testing rail safety workers for the presence of drugs and alcohol.

The bill also inserts new clauses into the national law by prescribing offences for hindering, obstructing, assaulting, threatening or intimidating an authorised person or interfering, tampering with or destroying urine, oral fluid or a blood sample. I do want to point out that the positive testing among rail safety workers is low as of January 2019. Of the 21,500 drug tests conducted amongst rail safety workers by the industry, just 0.33 per cent returned a positive test. The result was even lower for a positive alcohol reading: of the 215,000 tests conducted, just 0.03 per cent returned a positive alcohol test.

It is also important to note that industry tests are not performed to an evidentiary standard. The regulator does a small amount of drug testing to an evidentiary standard for prosecutorial requirements. The limitation to date is that the regulator can conduct swab testing. However, saliva only retains the presence of drugs for a short period of time. In remote areas, urine testing may be required, given the distance required to make the sample for required testing.

While swab testing of saliva will continue to be the primary form of testing, in a limited amount of cases urine testing will enable the regulator to have a more accurate drug and alcohol reading. Of course, the results of a positive drug test alone are not sufficient for prosecution; it must be coupled with evidence of impairment in the rail safety worker, which can be obtained via witness statements. In addition, any immediate positive reading, called a non-negative, must be validated by a confirmatory test.

I note that the bill does have the support of all sides as well as major stakeholders, including the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the Australasian Railway Association and the Australian Local Government Association. Rail is an important and vital form of transport, but it is unfortunate that in this state it has been diminished through disinterest by successive governments because of various factors, from a mix of rail line gauges to the cost of maintenance.

The government did not think it was worth investing in the Overland train service to Melbourne, which had to be taken up by the Victorians to keep those services operating. It was disappointing to see that Viterra would cease using the rail line on Eyre Peninsula for its grain freight, preferring road transport on highways that currently are not up to scratch for the amount of heavy traffic that will use it.

Also, it has been disappointing to see the abject neglect of our once proud country rail network. In handing over the peppercorn contract for these lines to Genesee & Wyoming, a condition was that they be maintained in the event they were required, with two weeks' notice. That cannot happen when you have infrastructure that has fallen into disrepair, with trees growing through the sleepers.

In other states, they are investing in new and exciting rail projects between cities, while here we languish. Rail carries the economies of our biggest trading partners. They have impressive rail networks and continue to invest in them because they are reliable and efficient. We need to change that thinking in this state. With that, SA-Best supports the amendments proposed and with those words we support the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:14): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate and for their indication of support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.