Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 November 2022.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:19): I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. I note the long list of government members who apparently have a significant interest in rail safety today. Someone more cynical than I might even think that this is an attempt at filibustering because the government are lacking a legislative agenda. Nevertheless, I am willing to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt, and I am really looking forward to their contributions, and I am sure the people of South Australia are too.

It is crucial that rail safety is never compromised in any way, and a bill that seeks to ensure that certainly has the support of the Liberal Party of South Australia. South Australia, being the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law, has an important responsibility to ensure that the spirit of the national law is being upheld and that its functions work as intended.

We know that there are issues or areas within the Rail Safety National Law that need to be addressed. One such issue concerns the incidence of rail safety workers potentially altering certificates of competence which are then provided to rail transit operators. This could effectively undermine the necessity for the certificate. This bill seeks to address that kind of behaviour—providing misleading material or omitting information to then create misleading material—by punishing those found guilty of such an offence with a maximum penalty of $10,000.

COVID-19 also brought about challenges and difficulties within many industries. It certainly brought about difficulties around section 114 of the act. Section 114 of the act requires that rail safety workers undergo health and also fitness programs as implemented by rail transport operators. We know that due to COVID-19 access to non-urgent medical services has at times been very difficult, therefore making the ability of rail transport operators to meet the requirements of section 114 difficult during these times.

It is appropriate that the Rail Safety National Law has the ability to adapt to these and other challenging circumstances. This bill would insert a section into the national law that would provide the National Rail Safety Regulator with a new power to grant exemptions to all rail operators or rail transport operators of a class from section 114 in the event of an emergency. This is, of course, regulated by a limited period of time for which exemptions can be granted of three months.

We have been assured that any rail transit operator that breaches any condition placed on the exemption from section 114 without reasonable excuse is subject to a maximum penalty of $20,000 if they are an individual and up to $100,000 if they are a body corporate. We, the opposition, believe this new power is a reasonable response to the challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I certainly hope that this section will not need to be used often into the future; however, it is entirely appropriate that this issue be addressed in the event that it is required at any point into the future. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (15:22): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Late last year, we were reminded of the fundamental importance of rail safety when the Grange train lost traction and collided with a barrier. Despite the seriousness of this incident there were no injuries or fatalities because our rail safety mechanisms functioned as they should.

What this incident shows is that South Australia's rail safety infrastructure is working, but when it comes to something as crucial as rail safety, there is no room for complacency. The amendments moved by this bill respond to gaps that have been identified in the existing legislation to bolster our already strong system, increasing security for rail passengers workers and pedestrians alike. However, this bill is one of a suite of initiatives the Labor government has designed to increase and ensure a safe and sustainable rail system for the future.

It is important to note that South Australia is the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law. This means that if the bill passes in this house the amendments to the national law flow on to all Australian states and territories, except Western Australia.

There are two important ways in which this bill amends the Rail Safety National Law. Firstly, it creates an offence for a rail safety worker to provide a document or information that is false or misleading or that contains fundamental omissions. Secondly, it gives a new power to all rail safety operators to grant an exemption from the requirement to prepare and implement a health and fitness program for rail safety workers in the event of an emergency.

Under the Rail Safety National Law, rail transport operators are responsible for ensuring that rail safety workers have the competence to undertake rail safety work in relation to their railway operations. An assessment of a rail safety worker's competence includes an assessment of the worker's competence in accordance with any applicable qualifications or units of competence recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework. The national law provides that a certificate of competence that has purportedly been issued under the framework to a rail safety worker and that certifies the worker has certain qualifications or units of competence is evidence that the worker has those qualifications or units of competence.

There have been incidents where rail safety workers have altered certificates of competence and provided the altered certificates to rail transport operators. This bill amends the Rail Safety National Law to address this behaviour. This bill makes it an offence for a rail safety worker to knowingly provide a document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular or that omits any matter or thing without which the document or information is misleading for the purposes of an assessment of the worker's competency to carry out rail safety work. The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000. This penalty is commensurate to similar offences as it is the same maximum penalty that applies to rail safety workers who test positive to drugs or alcohol or those who refuse to submit to such tests.

It is anticipated that the introduction of this offence will help to increase the safety of railway operations in Australia by dissuading some rail safety workers from attempting to rely on altered certificates of competence, as this has occurred in the past. The creation of this new class of offence is a sensible and decisive approach that will ensure that everyone who works on our rail network is appropriately qualified to do so.

The bill also inserts a section into the national law that provides the National Rail Safety Regulator with a new power to grant exemptions. The new power enables the regulator to exempt all rail transport operators or rail transport operators of a class from section 114 of the national law in the event of an emergency. Section 114 requires rail transport operators to prepare and implement a health and fitness program for rail safety workers. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to non-urgent medical services was limited and this affected the ability of rail transport operators to meet the requirements of section 114.

While the regulator currently has the power to grant rail transport operators an exemption from section 114, this power only allows the regulator to grant exemptions to individual operators upon application. The narrow scope of the regulator's power meant that, at the beginning of the pandemic, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator had to work with each state and territory to arrange for the responsible minister in each jurisdiction to grant operators an exemption from section 114.

The regulator's new power means that, in the event of a future emergency, the regulator will be able to grant an exemption from section 114 to all rail transport operators across all jurisdictions at the same time. Like the section of the national law that gives responsible ministers an exemption power, the new section will limit the period of time for which exemptions can be granted to three months and will allow exemptions to be granted subject to conditions and will allow for the variation and cancellation of exemptions.

It will be an offence for a rail transport operator to breach a condition placed on an exemption from section 114 without reasonable excuse. If an operator is prosecuted, it will be up to the operator to show that they had a reasonable excuse for breaching the condition. An operator found guilty of this offence will be subject to a maximum penalty of $100,000 if they are a body corporate or $20,000 if they are an individual. What this amendment does is give our rail system the ability to continue to operate flexibly and safely in times of a national crisis or emergency.

Rail safety is an incredibly important issue in South Australia and across the country. On average, there are 83 fatalities on Australian rail lines each year and, unfortunately, only this week a further fatality occurred in an incident on the Seaford rail line. In South Australia, we have approximately 300 pedestrian railway crossings in the metropolitan passenger rail network and 180 in regional, rural and remote communities. We also have 557 public railway level crossings, including 79 metropolitan level crossings.

In South Australia, there are on average 110 near misses and six collisions between a train and people or vehicles each year. Every single accident or near miss leaves an indelible mark on the people involved: the train drivers, the emergency services members, the railway workers and their families. The Malinauskas Labor government is committed to increasing and ensuring rail safety at our level and pedestrian railway crossings.

Recently, in addition to pedestrian railway crossings, the Malinauskas government has announced that 13 existing pedestrian crossings along the Gawler rail line are being upgraded to active crossings to improve safety for pedestrians. We have announced that on the Outer Harbor line, the existing pedestrian crossing adjacent Kilkenny Primary School will be upgraded to an activated pedestrian crossing, and we have announced that the two pedestrian crossings at Clarence Park train station are also planned to be activated.

The Malinauskas government, in conjunction with the federal Labor government, has also recently committed to funding a number of grade separations for level crossings. Grade separation is the removal of a level crossing and has been shown to improve travel times for motorists and increase safety for all road users.

As part of this tram grade separation project, the federal and state Labor governments have committed to funding a planning study to investigate the removal of the level crossing where the Glenelg tramline crosses Morphett Road in Morphettville and funding of $400 million, split fifty-fifty, towards removing the level crossings from the Glenelg tramline at Marion Road and Cross Road in Plympton. These future-focused rail safety initiatives will ensure that the next generation of South Australians will have a safer and more secure environment to travel in.

While I am on my feet speaking to this bill, I think it is important to acknowledge the message of last year's Rail Safety Week, which ran from 8 to 14 August. Rail Safety Week is an annual community awareness campaign held in Australia and New Zealand designed to engage the community in safe rail practices. The message of last year's Rail Safety Week was: 'Stand back, look up and stay rail safe when around trains, trams and rail lines.' It only takes one moment of distraction or unsafe action to change a person's life forever. This campaign reminds people travelling on or around rail to turn down distractions, take off your headphones and look up from your phone, look up and stand behind the gate at pedestrian crossings, stand behind the yellow lines and hold onto handrails.

Another commitment of the Malinauskas government to increase rail safety is to reverse the Marshall Liberal government's privatisation of our trams and trains. At the election, the Labor team committed to reversing the Marshall Liberal government's privatisation of our trains and trams, bringing them back into public hands as soon as possible. We committed to establish an independent commission of inquiry, to ensure the return of a trained and competent workforce into the public sector, including train and tram drivers and maintenance workers, and to ensure a smooth transition of our trains and trams back into public ownership.

Public transport in public hands ensures governments can invest in cleaner, greener and safer rail networks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help combat climate change. In turn, investing in a more modern rail network encourages more people to catch public transport and leave their car at home. With cars contributing about half of all transport-related emissions, fewer vehicles on our roads leads to environmental and health benefits, such as lower emissions, improved air quality and increased road safety. This bill and the Malinauskas government's other rail initiatives are designed to ensure that we continue to have a safe and agile rail system for the future. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:33): I rise on behalf of SA-Best in support of this bill, which seeks to reinforce safety in rail transport through certification of qualifications and the competence of workers. One section of the act will require the rail transport operators to prepare health and fitness programs. There are measures to grant exemptions to workers who may not meet all the criteria in the event of emergencies such as the pandemic. The fitness of rail workers to fulfil their responsibilities is vital in this heavy transport sector, and as South Australia is the lead legislator, this will flow through to the national level.

It is fascinating and it strikes me as being quite curious that, of all the Australian states and territories, South Australia is a lead legislator when it comes to national rail laws. I say this because, of all the states and territories, our existing rail networks are nowhere near the size or capacity of what occurs elsewhere. This bill is all about rail safety, and that is a good thing and we all support that, but what about the health and safety of our entire rail lines throughout the state?

Around the country we are seeing large nation-building rail projects. We are seeing them in resource rich areas of Western Australia and Queensland. The Victorian government is spending billions building up its freight and passenger networks. New South Wales continues to expand its rail services, yet South Australia remains the archaic rail oddity, not only in this country but the world. We do not have any major infrastructure rail works in the pipeline, save for a planned 240-kilometre link between Leigh Creek and Port Augusta by a mining company. I understand it is still waiting for approval.

It is time we had a serious look at the health and fitness of our entire rail network, in particular the disused lines. Our regional rail lines have been allowed to fall into disrepair because successive state governments failed to ensure proper maintenance compliance for which rail companies were responsible under the terms of their contract. That contract was quite clear on what the obligations were, or so we thought. Those lines had to be maintained to a standard that would allow them to be used and brought back into service at short notice.

But, as it now turns out, nobody in the Department for Transport or any of the ministers responsible ever cared to enforce it. Therefore, many regional lines were simply allowed to rust away, with trees growing between rotting sleepers. One of the dumbest decisions made by this state was to turn its back on the existing network in the late 1960s and 1970s in favour of road transport, a follow-on from Tom Playford's misguided decision to rip up our network of tramlines so that he could put more diesel-powered buses on our roads, after inking a deal with Mobil for an oil refinery at Port Stanvac.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Shame!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes. Abandoning country rail proved to be the death knell of several once-thriving regional centres. When rail disappeared, so did people living in regional communities linked by rail lines. Towns like Burra and Peterborough to the north, and towns in our South-East slowly died. Populations dwindled. Regional communities were further isolated from the city, relying on infrequent bus services, cars or expensive flights, putting enormous pressure on our poorly managed and maintained regional roads, creating unsafe driving conditions, which no doubt led to fatalities and injuries.

Representatives of the Burra community recently spoke out about the disruptive effect of losing their rail links, causing an exodus of residents and making the community feel isolated. Viterra is now talking about rejuvenating the grain line on Eyre Peninsula that it foolishly abandoned three years ago, claiming that the deteriorating state of the track had slowed down freight trains. It opted for putting more heavy vehicles on our crumbling regional roads to transport its grain to ports.

Viterra's about face has been influenced now by increased transport costs due to high fuel prices, which will not be coming down in a hurry. Last year, I put to the Chief Executive of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Whelan, that his department had a real aversion to reinvigorating regional rail networks and seemed only interested in what was going on in the city. He told me he loved rail, that it was in his DNA, with his dad working for the Australian National Railways, and that he believed rail was the backbone of Australia and would always be that way—except in South Australia, of course.

He then mentioned the electrification of the Gawler line, where, as we know, costs blew out to exorbitant amounts. It is a line that services the needs of those who travel to and from the city. When I put it to him that they are doing nothing in the regions, he said Aurizon, the company which took over lines previously run and those run into the ground by One Rail, nee Genesee & Wyoming, have come to the department with some ideas of utilising rail in the north. That is nice, but why is DIT not pursuing initiatives of their own?

Mr Whelan's predecessor, Mr Braxton-Smith, under the direction of his then minister and member for the Barossa seat of Schubert, Stephan Knoll, made the incredibly stupid decision to slice the line between Tanunda and Nuriootpa to make way for a hideous vehicle roundabout. The move cruelled an ambitious yet attractive tourism initiative by Chateau Tanunda's colourful character of an owner, John Geber, to bring back a wine train, much like the successful operation in California's Napa Valley.

Ideas like this need nurturing and encouragement rather than being dismissed out of hand by bureaucrats and politicians lacking any vision. I still hope it can happen. Who knows, we might yet see Sam Smith, or someone of that ilk, tooting the whistle on a train loaded with influencers travelling through one of the most picturesque and famous regions in this country.

In response to a question from me to Mr Whelan about why those country lines were allowed to fall into disrepair in the first place, the contract signed in 1997 excluded maintaining all rail lines that had been disused before 1997, ruling out a lot of those regional lines that had been used for both freight and passengers.

The contract also included a puzzling dormant condition, a minimum service requirement that was meant to maintain the infrastructure only to a level that was reasonably practicable to reopen the line for rail traffic of a similar volume and nature as was operated on the line before it was closed to rail traffic within a period of two weeks. That was a term in the contract.

You could drive a locomotive through that condition. Those volumes would have been quite negligible by then anyway, so next to nothing. Worse still, this dormant condition obligation only applied to actively used Australian National Railways Commission lines in the year prior to the commencement of the lease in 1997, and it only applied for the first five years of the lease, which expired in November 2002. So we have seen 21 years of total neglect.

Mr Whelan went on to say that since November 2002 it has not been practical, reasonable or commercial for the lessee to maintain unused tracks in a state that is able to be returned to active service. Seriously, what an abject failure of government to protect the sovereign interests of this state, and its taxpayers, for ill-founded and misguided sociopolitical reasons.

Eminent King's Counsel, former Eyre Peninsula country girl Marie Shaw KC, revealed that a DIT whistleblower told her it was unspoken policy in the department for a long time that road transport was always the preferred option over rail. Mr Whelan has denied this, but from my own knowledge and experience of dealing with this issue I am siding with Ms Shaw until I see otherwise.

However, it was pleasing to see that the government—this government—has put $9 million towards the maintenance of bridges and other infrastructure used for the very popular SteamRanger and Pichi Richi railway journeys run by volunteer enthusiasts. That brings me to the proposal by Spanish company Talgo to run the trial of their unique fast train, using its innovative variable gauge technology, between the Keswick terminal and Mount Barker, which would demonstrate what can be achieved on the existing standard gauge line running through the Hills.

Right now, we know that there are transport challenges in the Hills because of the ever-expanding development in Mount Barker and surrounding towns. We saw only the other day the Mayor of Mount Barker predict that the population of that town could hit 40,000, making it the second largest city in the state. Having such a rail service from Mount Barker into the city would ease the traffic congestion to and from the city, provide a valuable, uninterrupted and rapid service, and would also serve to reduce the spate of traffic-choking incidents on the South Eastern Freeway.

It is disappointing that a briefing paper, recently put out by the minister and his department canvassing options for the South Eastern Freeway, did not even touch on the rail trial, even though Mr Whelan assured us that the government was keen for it to proceed, pending some financial commitments from the Spanish government. These discussions are going at such a snail's pace—and through no fault of the Spaniards—that it could be two to three years before we even sight any movement there, let alone the train Talgo wants to ship out here.

Talgo believe that they have the rapid-speed technology to provide a quick and efficient service that is not available in Australia. In October, I travelled to Las Matas, Madrid, and met with Talgo's CCO, Mr Rafael Sterling, Mr Jesus Rodriguez, the head of business development for the Asia-Pacific region, and Mrs Elena Garcia, the project manager for the Asia-Pacific region, where we discussed their enthusiasm to undertake the trial and the possibility of Talgo establishing a manufacturing base in South Australia, as they did in Kazakhstan, where more than 2,000 jobs were created in the manufacture of Talgo's rolling stock.

Talgo has operations around the world; however, it is quite enthusiastic about establishing a presence in the ASEAN region and preferably in Australia, where its unique variable gauge and carriage-tilting systems and their hybrid and hydrogen-powered fast trains would transform rail freight and passenger services. I went there under my own steam because it was important, as a member of the Hon. Robert Simms' transport committee and as a supporter of rail, to experience Talgo's truly revolutionary and innovative technologies, which have already transformed rail travel not only in Spain but throughout Europe.

Spain in the 1970s was not unlike South Australia, where car travel overtook existing public transport services, causing a steady decline in passenger numbers. However, a side effect was that motor vehicle traffic flows increased dramatically, creating a whole new set of problems in large cities like Madrid. In the late 1980s, Talgo modernised rail services and reversed declining patronage with comfortable high-speed trains able to operate at more than 200 km/h and fitted with an automatic variable gauge system.

Like Australia and this state, there are different sized gauges in Spain. Talgo's train sets can switch from, say, 1,668 millimetres or a 1,435 millimetre-sized line without having to stop. Talgo trains, running at maximum speeds of 330 km/h, have been in commercial service in Spain since 2005. Their trains, with a variable gauge system and a top speed of 250 km/h, have been running on several routes since 2007.

Spain, like Australia, is also experiencing the post-COVID after-effects of housing affordability and cost-of-living pressures, with many families now moving to more affordable regional cities and towns. Their fast train network enables people to mix between working from home and travelling into larger cities like Madrid, Seville or Barcelona. Patronage has increased significantly.

Talgo and the Spanish government's train operator Renfe invited me into the driver's cabin for their Madrid to Zamora service, some 254 kilometres, or the distance roughly between Adelaide and Port Augusta, which is around 308 kilometres. The train set was a hybrid, meaning it runs on both diesel and electricity. The variable gauge system was also used on the journey. I would not have known when the train changed gauges had it not been pointed out to me by the driver. It was an incredibly smooth and quick journey, effortlessly reaching a top speed of 250 km/h. It took just on an hour, even with some stops along the way. To put that in some local context, you could safely travel from Adelaide to Port Augusta in just over an hour, compared with the 3½ hours or more by road.

At Talgo's manufacturing factory, I saw how the unique variable gauge system works and their sophisticated guided axle-tilting technology system, which accommodates the high-speed capacity of Talgo's train sets. I also inspected a new train rolling off the production line with a luxurious and comfortable interior. This train is destined for the Madrid to Paris journey, some 1,276 kilometres. With a top speed of 330 km/h, the trip would take just three hours.

Given current fuel prices and infrequent slower public bus services throughout our regional centres linked by existing rail—used or unused lines—I am confident people would jump at it, and it would breathe new life into those regional communities forgotten by years of city-centric transport politics.

The Walker Corporation is currently developing a massive residential and commercial estate, Riverlea, on the Port Wakefield Road at Buckland Park. The $3 billion development will eventually be home to 30,000 residents—another satellite city that will present transport challenges on Port Wakefield Road. Residents would benefit from the creation of a rail spur line and a fast train that would carry passengers into the city.

Talgo is confident it can complete the trip from Mount Barker to Adelaide in under an hour. The company would also look at trialling on the Overland route between Adelaide and Melbourne, which it says would slash the travel time from 10½ hours to around six hours. Who needs to jump on a plane when you can do that trip, go through various towns in that region and then get to Melbourne? It would almost be the same time as it would be to make a plane journey. If we were to adapt Talgo's technology, I am confident we would see a momentous switch to rail travel.

I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, to fast-track negotiations with Talgo and work with the company and the Spanish government to overcome any existing obstacles. I would urge the Premier and trade and investment minister, the Hon. Nick Champion, to make the trial an urgent priority. There are joint economic benefits and enormous job creation opportunities awaiting us. I would hate to see them lost to another state which appreciates the value of rail more than we have. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:53): I rise to support the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I am proud to support this bill, which amends and improves the rail safety national law in two main ways.

I will firstly speak about the group of amendments that make it an offence for a rail safety worker to knowingly provide false or misleading documents or information for the purpose of assessing a worker's competency. It is quite disturbing to learn that this legislation came about because of the submission of fraudulent documents to sidestep meeting an essential safety requirement.

This sidestepping by submitting falsified documents about a worker's competence relates to section 117 of the Rail Safety National Law. The law ensures that all rail operators must be accredited in carrying out rail safety work. A certificate of competence can only be issued under the Australian Qualifications Framework. This certificate verifies that a worker has certain qualifications or has units of competence to fulfil the duties of a rail safety worker.

Just to clarify, under the Rail Safety National Law, rail transport officers have the important responsibility of making sure that rail safety workers have been trained and have the necessary skills to perform rail safety work, which includes:

driving or dispatching a train or tram otherwise referred to as rolling stock, or any other activity which is capable of controlling or affecting the movement of rolling stock;

coupling or uncoupling rolling stock;

work involving the development, management or monitoring of safe working systems for railways;

work involving the management or monitoring of passenger safety on, in, or at any other railway.

The importance of rail safety cannot be underestimated. The revelation that rail safety workers have altered certificates of competence and then given the altered certificates to rail transport operators is serious. Compromising safety by the submission of false documents is utterly unacceptable. This bill amends the Rail Safety National Law to address this behaviour.

Given the seriousness of such actions, the Labor Malinauskas government should be commended for addressing this issue. The bill also amends the national law to provide the National Rail Safety Regulator with a new power to exempt all rail transport operators from section 114 of the national law in the event of an emergency.

Section 114 of the national law requires a rail transport operator to prepare and deliver a health and fitness program for rail safety workers who perform rail safety work for the operator. As it currently stands, the National Rail Safety Regulator's power to grant an exemption to this requirement is limited. Currently, the rail transport operator can only grant an exemption to an individual rail transport operator who makes an application for an exemption.

This meant that during the COVID pandemic the regulator was unable to grant an exemption to all rail transport operators at the beginning of this health emergency. This group of amendments will give the National Rail Safety Regulator the power to exempt all rail transport operators or a class of rail transport operators from section 114 of the national law in the event of an emergency.

As the whole world learned during COVID, the need for quick and decisive action during an emergency is vital. Getting the various jurisdictions to agree to a national set of guiding principles is never easy. Balancing different points of view, perspectives and priorities is always challenging and I commend everyone involved in ensuring these changes were made in order to improve rail safety. There is usually always room for improvement. Reflecting on and learning from the past two years of COVID is how we can improve responses in the future. This part of the bill does this for all rail transport operators.

I understand that there was extensive consultation during the process of forming this bill, and I thank the following stakeholders for their work: the National Transport Commission, all states and territories, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator and members of the rail industry, including the Australasian Railway Association and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. I thank them all for contributing to this bill, which will improve public safety and ensure proper processes and behaviours are followed.

Making our rail systems safe will encourage our community to use them more. The amendments in this bill are responsible and practicable. I encourage all members to support this bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:00): I rise to speak briefly on the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022. This is a very exciting bill, as South Australia is the lead legislator for the Rail Safety National Law, which can be found in the schedule to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. It was originally introduced into the lower house by the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Mr Tom Koutsantonis, who is well known throughout the country as being a champion when it comes to safety issues in the rail network.

The bill will amend the Rail Safety National Law to make it an offence for a railway safety worker to knowingly provide a document or information that is false and misleading and omits any matter or thing without which the document or information is misleading for the purpose of an assessment of the worker's competency to carry out rail safety work. The new offence, in section 117, will allow for the prosecution of a railway safety worker who provides a document or information in relation to an assessment of the worker's competency.

The maximum penalty for this offence is $10,000. It is submitted that this penalty is commensurate with similar offences, as it is the same maximum penalty that applies to rail safety workers who test positive to drugs or alcohol or those who refuse to submit to such a test; that is, an offence against sections 126—Authorised person may require preliminary breath test or breath analysis; 127—Authorised person may require drug screening test, oral fluid analysis, urine test and blood test; and 128—Offence relating to prescribed concentration of alcohol or prescribed drug. It is anticipated that the introduction of this offence will help to increase the safety of railway operators operating in Australia by dissuading some railway safety workers from attempting to rely on altered certificates of competence, as has occurred in the past.

The new offence does not impose a term of imprisonment as a penalty. There are three serious offences in the existing Rail Safety National Law that have the option of a jail term as a penalty. These offences are found in the following sections: section 58—Failure to comply with safety duty—reckless conduct—Category 1; section 128B—Offence to assault, threaten or intimidate authorised person; and section 174—Offence to assault, threaten or intimidate rail safety officer.

In terms of the new power during emergencies, the bill will also amend the national law to provide the National Rail Safety Regulator with a new power to grant all rail safety operators an exemption from the requirement to prepare and implement a health and fitness program for rail safety workers in the event of an emergency. It is expected that the regulator's new power will benefit rail transport operators by allowing them to be exempt more quickly from the requirement to implement a health and fitness program in the event of an emergency.

Existing regulation 27 of the Rail Safety National Law National Regulations 2012 requires that a health and fitness program implemented by a rail transport operator under section 114 of the national law must comply with the national standard for health assessment of rail safety workers published by the National Transport Commission.

The standard stipulates minimum assessment frequencies for different risk categories of rail safety workers. A transport operator may decide to require rail safety workers to be assessed more frequently. The responsibility for preparing and implementing a health and fitness program rests with rail transport operators and not rail safety workers.

If the regulator were to grant an exemption to all rail transport operators under the new section 203A power, from the requirements relating to periodic health assessments, rail transport operators would be required to implement their health and fitness programs as it relates to periodic assessments as soon as the emergency ends or the exemption expires, whichever occurs first. Labor takes safety on our railway networks very seriously, hence the bill. I urge all members of this house to support it.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:05): Isn't it wonderful to get up and speak about safety again. Really, it does not matter: it could be trains, trams, automobiles or flying things—Labor loves talking about safety.

I took some umbrage at the honourable leader's comments in starting debate on this bill. I was pleased to see that obviously there is support being provided, but I have to say that, in saying that somehow we would be delaying matters, I can only look at the speaking list and note that such is obviously the power of what the honourable leader had to say that none of her colleagues felt the need to speak on the bill. I am going to take that as speaking to the authority the honourable leader has: when she speaks, her bench listens. I think that is good. I think that is important. It is nice. I think that applies to rail, veterinary issues and lumpy skin disease. These types of issues are very important, and it is good that we can talk about them.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hanson, can you just talk about the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Thank you, Mr President, I will pick up the pace a bit. Obviously, I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022—

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo: Along with your whole team; every single one.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: —along with our whole team and the reason is clear. Thank you for the interjection. Yes, along with our whole team, the Hon. Ms Girolamo, and the reason is because on this side of the house we care about safety, and this is really important: we care about safety and we care about rail. We care about public transport, like I know many South Australians do, and how I know that is because we took a very important issue to the last election all about rail and that was about bringing our rail transport system back into public hands after it was privatised by your current party, the Hon. Ms Girolamo. I know you will not make that mistake again and, when it comes to supporting us bringing it back, I know you will—I know you will—because you will not make the mistake of privatisation again. I am sure you will not, but—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: I don't know.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: The Hon. Mr Simms says, 'I don't know'. I have more confidence. I am an optimist, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. Simms interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, keep it up and you will be thrown out—outrageous.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Anyhow, the importance of—

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: —good, safe, reliable public transport is paramount. In South Australia, we are fortunate enough to have a great public transport system to utilise of various things, such as bus, rail and tram across our metropolitan services. But when you talk about rail in a wider sense, obviously we need to be talking about the fact that we have quite a few rails going across regional South Australia and not just in our metropolitan areas and that is also why this bill is quite critical.

I took umbrage at the comment that in some way we would be talking for no good reason. South Australia is the lead jurisdiction in regard to what is going to happen in national rail safety law. The reason that is important is because for quite some years there has been a problem with our current legislation around how reporting of rail safety incidents or prospective rail safety incidents is going to occur. This is actually quite critical because you have RTOs that send out people to conduct jobs and sometimes they might not have the right qualifications. You have protection officers for the ARTC. They are very well trained, but unfortunately they cannot attend or do not attend all jobs and you have contractors who come out and conduct spot work and they are not always trained properly.

I know none of this was in the honourable leader's statement. I am sure she is across these issues, too. This has been a problem for years. It is a problem with the legislation, and it has to be addressed. It is a problem that we know about in part because it has come up in some reports out of legal proceedings that have resulted from crashes that have occurred. The safety of workers has, very sadly, been put behind the safety of the industry. We cannot have that. We cannot have a situation where worker safety is put behind industry safety.

The safety of workers must be more important than the safety of the industry. Some of the changes already ventilated by my colleagues will indeed allow that. Workers can alert regulators about other workers who they know do not have the appropriate qualifications. This will be confidential, but what it achieves is deterrence, in effect. If you know that someone else on the job can say that you do not have the right qualifications and you are doing the wrong thing and that can be achieved in a manner that achieves deterrence, then that is going to make all jobs across this state safer.

Under the act, if you believe that you are doing the job you are asked to do, then the onus ends up falling on the employer. You can see how this starts to provide both safety for the industry and safety for the worker, but it really puts the worker first. I think that is what compelled so many members on this side to want to speak in favour of this bill because worker safety is something that we take very seriously. That is why this bill is so critical.

Rail safety is something that goes not only to whether workers are adequately trained but, under the Rail Safety National Law, rail transport operators are responsible for ensuring that rail safety workers have the competence to undertake rail safety work in their railway operations. In effect, what this means is an assessment of a rail safety worker's competence looks at the works and abilities in accordance with applicable qualifications or units recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework, again going to why this is obviously so important in regard to national law.

The national law provides that a certificate of competence that has purportedly been issued under the framework to a rail safety worker and certifies that that worker has certain qualifications or units of competence is the evidence. So when an incident does occur, it is as simple as going to the evidence of whether the worker was qualified to undertake the work. As I foreshadowed, unfortunately there have been incidents where rail safety workers have altered certificates of competence and provided altered certificates to rail transport operators. Put simply, in any other industry, I think that would be an offence.

What we are seeking to ensure is that it will be an offence here also. Under the amendments to the national law being put forward in this bill, it will now be an offence for a rail safety worker to knowingly provide an altered document or information for the purposes of an assessment of the worker's competence. Essentially, that goes straight to 'false and misleading'. I say again, you have evidence; if you have altered your document in some way, you have altered evidence. You have provided false and misleading things, and if we go through a report, we will find culpability.

The important thing here is that this also defends employers because employers are currently responsible as the operator but they can only do as much as they can do. If someone is providing false information to them, there is only so much they can do. This will also assist them when it comes to those reports.

The bill will also provide, as the Hon. Mr Ngo went through, amendments to section 114. This has particular importance because when we have a national emergency—as we did very recently, of course—this goes directly to those points. Rail safety operators are required to prepare and implement health and fitness programs for rail safety workers. That could not be done during the pandemic, and what it led to was problems within the industry. What this allows is for there to be a short suspension of those matters. If I go from recollection, I think that is up to three months. This new section will limit the period of time for which exemptions can be granted.

It will allow exemptions to be granted subject to specific conditions. I guess that will depend on the nature of the emergency before you, and it will allow for the variation and cancellation of exemptions, critically, as well. It is an offence for a rail transport operator to breach a condition placed on an exemption without reasonable cause. If an operator is prosecuted, it will be up to the operator to show that they had a reasonable excuse for breaching that condition.

That really sums up a pretty critical issue that has come to the fore most recently with COVID and everything that we saw there, and will allow our rail safety laws to be far more flexible, if you like, in effect. If this bill passes the parliament and commences operation, these amendments to national law will apply to the majority of Australian states and territories, except for Western Australia. That is why it is important that we actually get this right. That is why it is so important that we take a bipartisan approach to this issue.

I am glad to see that just about everybody, including the Hon. Mr Pangallo—other than his concern about a few decaying lines here and there—seems quite happy to support it. We can encourage more people onto public transport, we can get more freight onto our freight lines and make it safer not only for commuters but also for workers operating on our transport systems in this this state. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:16): I rise to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This bill makes necessary changes to the national rail safety regulations, but it has been a long journey to get to a point where we even have a national regulation in our rail network.

South Australia has a long and proud history in rail. The first railway in South Australia was built in 1854, a horse-drawn tram, which ran between Goolwa and Port Elliott and later extended to Victor Harbor. This now forms part of what is known as the SteamRanger Heritage Railway. I am pleased to say that our government is making significant investments of $8.9 million to upgrade five bridges along the line, to ensure South Australians can continue to enjoy this unique tourist attraction.

South Australia had the first publicly-owned and operated rail system in the British Empire, when the railway between the city and Port Adelaide was completed in 1856. I know that all on this side are proud—as are many other members in this chamber as well—that the Malinauskas Labor government is working towards returning our train network to public ownership, as it should be.

In 1886, the line from Adelaide to Melbourne opened after a bridge was built at Murray Bridge. Rail transport was vital for freight movement between the colonies and to transport goods to export seaports. By the time of Federation in 1901, all mainland states, except Western Australia, were connected by rail. Of course, one of the challenges in the Federation made up of former colonies was that infrastructure, such as gauges and how wide the tracks were, were not uniform and neither were regulations.

Even within this one colony, as lines developed, rail ran on many different gauges. Lines were built on narrow gauge, such as Broken Hill to Port Pirie, while some lines ran on broad gauge. Towns such as Peterborough became a major break of a gauge station. Everywhere there was a different gauge the goods on the trains had to be unloaded and reloaded onto different trains. In his excellent book, A Great Australian Road Journey, Ross Stargatt notes that in 1917 if someone were to travel from Perth to Brisbane, they would have needed to change trains six times.

It is not surprising, given the amount of infrastructure involved, that it has taken us a long time to get uniformity in operations and regulations of the rail system in Australia. One of the biggest steps forward was in the late 2000s, when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was transport minister. He drove a great period of reform in safety regulations in both rail and heavy road vehicles around Australia.

The South Australian Rann Labor government at the time, through the works of the then transport minister and good friend Patrick Conlon, was a strong supporter of this reform, and South Australia's contribution was recognised when the rail industry itself suggested that South Australia should be the base for the head office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.

We continue to be the lead legislators in national rail safety. Once this bill is passed it will apply to all states and territories, except, Western Australia, which will introduce a mirroring legislation. The bill addresses circumstances where rail safety workers provide false or misleading documentation regarding their competencies.

Rail safety workers are a large and diverse group of workers. They perform a range of rail safety related tasks, including driving and dispatching trains; signalling and relaying communication to direct trains; coupling or uncoupling carriages; constructing and maintaining trains and rail infrastructure; work on or about rail infrastructure, where the worker might be exposed to trains in motion; installing or maintaining rail-related telecommunications or electricity; certifying the safety of, or decommissioning of, trains or rail infrastructure; developing or monitoring safe working systems for railways; and managing or monitoring passenger safety in or at railways.

All of these jobs are essential to the safe and efficient operation of passenger and freight rail services across Australia. Rail safety operators are required by law to ensure their workers undergo assessments of their competence before performing rail safety work. The bill will amend the Rail Safety National Law to make it an offence for a rail safety worker to knowingly provide a document or information that is false or misleading in a material way in the course of an assessment of their competence. The maximum penalty is $10,000, which is the same as for testing positive to drugs or alcohol or refusing to be tested for drugs or alcohol.

The purpose of these new offences is to prevent rail safety workers from working in circumstances where they do not have the capacity to do so, in the interests of both their safety and the public safety. Many people in this chamber know about my and John Weste's passion for Harry Potter and bringing the magic of Hogwarts into Parliament House. Unfortunately, the magic of Hogwarts does not go across to the train system in South Australia, which is why we in parliament need to legislate to ensure that those who are in control of our trains and rail infrastructure are up to the important job of driving, dispatching, maintaining, monitoring and certifying our trains and network.

The bill will also amend the Rail Safety National Law to empower the National Rail Safety Regulator to exempt rail safety operators from the requirement to prepare and implement a health and fitness program for workers in the event of an emergency. This will allow exemptions to be granted more quickly, when appropriate. This was found to be necessary during COVID restrictions, but it will not mean that operators are not required to run the health and fitness programs. They will still be required to do so periodically when the emergency ends or the exemption expires.

Adelaide's metropolitan rail service carries over 15 million passengers every year and includes approximately 300 railway crossings, which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks safely. The amendments in this bill are just part of the Malinauskas Labor government's commitments to rail and infrastructure safety. They are important because they are about keeping South Australians safe.

Our commitments to rail safety include the upgrade of 13 existing pedestrian crossings on the Gawler line to improve pedestrian safety, work that I understand is due to be completed in the first part of this year; the upgrades of pedestrian crossings at West Croydon on the Outer Harbor line and two pedestrian crossings at Clarence Park train station; and the investigation of a grade separation to remove a level crossing at various locations across Adelaide, including Morphettville, Marion and Ovingham. This bill is the latest instalment in a vastly improved system of rail in Australia, and I commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:24): I rise to indicate that the Greens also support the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022. Hearing all of the speeches, one thing is very clear: Labor loves to talk about rail. But talk is cheap. Whether or not they will put their money where their mouth is remains to be seen in terms of investing in the infrastructure upgrades that are required for our state's railway network.

I spoke recently in this chamber about the push for regional rail. My colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo has spoken at considerable length about that. I do not intend to reventilate the arguments that he made—they are very compelling. I note that the chamber is full of Labor members. I hope that they were taking notes and will be following up on the important issues that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has raised because I am supportive of those concerns around regional rail and recognise, as does the community, how important that would be in terms of getting our rail network back on track.

The bill before us today is not talking specifically about regional rail; rather, it is looking at the issues of certificates of competence for rail workers and seeking to ensure that rail operations can continue under a state of emergency. The measures in this bill are valuable in ensuring the safe and continuous operation of rail networks across the state and, indeed, across the country. The first is to make it an offence to falsify a certificate of competence. We have been advised that there are instances where this has occurred, and this is a significant risk to public safety.

Secondly, the bill seeks to allow an exemption to health and fitness requirements in the case of a declared emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic, as my colleagues have noted, has taught us lessons about circumstances where activities under an emergency or a disaster could be hindered by an existing law or regulation. This part of the bill provides some flexibility in cases where an emergency has been declared and will enable the rail workforce to continue their important work.

The Greens are always supportive of rail as a mode of transport. We recognise rail as being safe, reliable and accessible. Indeed, we have been calling for new and extended rail networks across South Australia, particularly into regional areas. We are satisfied that the provisions in the legislation will enable the continuous safe operation of rail. With those very brief remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:27): I close the debate with my remarks and thank all members for their contributions and their interest in this matter. Creating a new offence disincentivises rail safety workers from providing false or misleading information when providing evidence to verify their competencies. The change proposed in this bill will strengthen existing governance arrangements, overseeing the competency management system for rail workers in the Australian rail industry.

We are confident this will increase the safety of railway operations in Australia by dissuading rail safety workers from attempting to rely on altered certificates of competence, as has unfortunately occurred in the past. The regulator's new power will also increase safety of railway operations by allowing rail transport operators to be exempted more quickly from the requirement to implement a health and fitness program in the event of an emergency. These changes were agreed to by all jurisdictions and have come to our chamber as South Australia is the lead legislator for national rail safety. For its benefits to rail safety, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I just want the government to clarify the process for resuming health and fitness programs that are outlined under section 114 of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. After the three months has expired, and the emergency is no longer declared, what happens at that point?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the guidelines do not go into the detail in terms of the question the honourable member has raised. It is at the discretion of the operator to advise when it is appropriate, and that is where it has been left at this stage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am clear, the minister is indicating that the government does not play a role in that process; it is just a matter for the private provider?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, that is correct.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Have any safety concerns been raised in that regard, or is that not an issue that has been raised in consultation with respect to the bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised there has not been any issue raised in regard to that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (8) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.