HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL SAFETY (SAFETY COORDINATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading debate resumed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:25): I will spend a few minutes speaking in support of the bill, but the member for Goyder on this side of the house has articulated our position quite well, I think. This is, obviously, a step in the right direction. It is an important aspect of road safety issues within the state and, being the shadow minister for road safety, I feel compelled to say a few words in relation to these matters.

I will focus my comments on the section of rail that runs through the electorate that I represent here, that is, the main Adelaide to Melbourne line that runs up through the Hills and, basically, through the middle of my electorate. It cuts underneath the freeway between Aldgate and Verdun and runs around the back of Verdun and through Balhannah, up into Nairne and out to Callington, Monarto and Murray Bridge, and then further into the rural areas. So, I imagine there would be at least 100 kilometres of that railway in my electorate and, obviously, some major roads and transport corridors criss-cross that line at quite a number of points. Also, some local roads cross that line, of course.

I have been pleased to see over the last year or so that there have been some significant improvements in signalling at some of the level crossings on the local council-operated and maintained roads throughout the district. Previously, there was just a stop sign at the level crossings, but electric flashing lights have been put in at a number of those level crossings and that is, clearly, an improvement to road safety.

There has been some controversy within the neighbouring state seat of Heysen and the federal seat of Mayo in relation to quite a large loop being placed on the Adelaide-Melbourne line around the back of the township of Verdun. Verdun used to be in my electorate but it has been moved into the electorate of Heysen, and there has been some strong representation by the local community and the local members—the member for Heysen (the Leader of the Opposition), and the federal member for Mayo (Jamie Briggs)—in relation to concerns about the loop and the impact it will have on the local community.

From a distance, I have observed that there are other places that that loop could be put in, because there is a loop at what is called the Balhannah junction at the old Balhannah railway station. I think there is ample length of rail corridor there to extend the loop. However, ARTC, the company that operates on that line, has made the decision to put in this new loop, and I think federal funds have been provided as part of the nation building projects that were rolled out a number of years ago. I understand it is being built to cater for the longer freight trains that will be run from all over the country but particularly on the Adelaide to Melbourne line, and there is some discussion and concern about that matter.

I also want to touch on road safety, because motorists continually need to take care and be aware, obviously, when they approach and cross over a level crossing. If you drive out through the country you will see some railway lines that are not used at all by trains. The tracks are still there, the crossing is still there and the signage might be taken down, but I know that when I approach those particular level crossings, I think, 'Well, do trains run along here or don't they?'

You do take care, but I think that some motorists may not. They might become used to approaching level crossings that, obviously, do have active train movements along those lines but they are not aware of it, and that is a cause for concern in relation to a potential for serious road crash and/or fatality. As the shadow minister for road safety, I want, really, to call on motorists to be aware of that.

The old line that runs off the Adelaide-Melbourne line at Mount Barker is a different gauge. It runs into Mount Barker station and down to Strathalbyn and Goolwa, and then on to Victor Harbor. That is a different gauge. I remember when I was first campaigning to win the seat of Kavel (running up to the 2002 election), I was not aware that that particular part of the line was not part of the Melbourne line, but just actually a spur off the Melbourne line. I would stop at that level crossing or slow right down to check whether trains were coming. However, some of the people said, 'No; the actual Melbourne line is further away.' However, more recently signs have been put up on the level crossing indicating that this line is not used by trains.

I am just using that as an example to highlight the fact that motorists are not necessarily aware that particular rail corridors are used by trains—some are and some are not. I think it is important that, particularly if they do not travel in the country on a regular basis, people are aware of these factors in relation to safety at level crossings.

In my closing comments, I just want to say that we all know that the railroads have been a major factor over the history of European settlement, both here in South Australia and right across the country, in building the nation to what it is. The railway and the railroads pushed out into the frontiers of the country and were a major contributing factor to the development of the country as we know it today. I am pleased to support the bill, but I felt that I wanted to make those several comments in relation to road safety.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:33): I rise to support the bill and commend the member for Goyder for raising and carrying it today. Yes, we do support this bill. My ongoing interest in rail ever since I have been in this place makes this issue also important to me. Crossings are the single area of concern because that is where most of the accidents happen.

I am pleased, though, that many of the dangerous level crossings now have warning flashing lights on them—not all of them but many have. Some of the worst are in the Barossa. We had two notorious crossings and now both have flashing lights on them, so I am very pleased about that. However, there are isolated country crossings that are still unprotected, and this is a great concern to me.

Safety is a big issue for rail, and where the road and rail crosses over is obviously the point of high risk. We do rely, though, very much on the fact that the crossing warning sites are working. Every time I come up to one I just make sure. I still visually look (not always but most of the time) because if it does not happen to be working, well, a tragedy is likely to happen. I understand that the reliability of those systems is pretty good—and I note that the minister is here.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am pleased that they are. I also welcome the fact that, after many years of debate, most of the trains now use reflective tape, etc., on the side of the railway carriages and wagons so that people can see them in the night, especially now that we have these huge freight trains two to three kilometres long.

You do not see the engine or the guard van that we used to have, and it is easy to drive straight into the side of these trains travelling over a crossing in an isolated country area. So I am pleased now that they have these reflective tapes on them. I know at the time there was always the argument that they would not put them on there because that meant they would have to keep them clean, and there was always this debate as to whether this reflector was kept in a clean condition. From my experience, you can see them, and I am pleased that they are there.

We now see the operation of our trains largely in private hands, and I think it is rather sad, because I think we got pretty good service from the old SA Rail. I know there was always the argument that it was expensive, but I do think essential services like this should mostly be in the hands of government. I do believe that. I am old enough to have enjoyed coming from Crystal Brook to Adelaide on the train in my schooldays. It was a ritual, coming home on the train. All sorts of pranks went on, I can tell you.

An honourable member: Smoking cigarettes?

Mr VENNING: Yes, we did, and then we would get to Bowmans and we would go into the change rooms to try to get rid of the horrible smell so that our parents would not smell that we had been smoking. How naive were we! Just as well, because I am now a committed non-smoker. Those were the days when we had the option of catching the passenger train to Adelaide, and it was great.

Genesee & Wyoming is one of the companies that operates these lines, particularly the one from Dry Creek to the Barossa, and it is sad to see the demise of the railway station at Nuriootpa—the minister would be aware of that. I am a little bit concerned, because I believed Genesee & Wyoming's contract stated that they had to maintain all the assets that they were leasing, including, I thought, the railway station. Today it is in a sad state, covered in graffiti and pretty rickety. I believe it is still basically sound, but it certainly is a bad eyesore and it is up for demolition. That is very sad, particularly in the Barossa, where a heritage building ought to be saved. Today it is fenced off while we have this continuing public debate. That is sad indeed.

It is also very sad, on the subject of railway lines, to realise that the Barossa Wine Train is being offered for sale. I think this is appalling after what we have had here. The current owner has had all sorts of impediments put in his way, and after many years and a huge amount of money restoring the Bluebirds down at Port Adelaide, he thinks enough is enough and he is moving on. The main problem was getting the accreditation, particularly from Genesee & Wyoming. I thought they had agreed to allow the company to run on their accreditation and then they said no, and it went on and on and around and around.

That is sad indeed, and the indemnity insurance was also a problem. I thought that we had all these problems solved, but the goalposts were continually moved. The owner is in Switzerland today, trying diligently to sell the train as a wine train, to a tourism operator but, if that fails, the famous Bluebirds will be sold, stripped and used as crew vans on freight trains. That is not just a threat, because if you have a look at the crew vans, that is what most of them were; they were the old Bluebird railcars that we used to use back in the 1950s and 1960s.

So it is very sad that this has happened, but I have not given up. I would like to convene a meeting, particularly with the minister's approval, of those stakeholders: himself, Mr Geber, the owner, and also with—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I know—he's a professional man; I know you have met him before. I think there ought to be a last-ditch one, and with Genesee & Wyoming, of course, and see what the situation is. The other problem we have is that the rail line is going to close temporarily for upgrades. Some are actually saying in the Barossa that it might never reopen. I hope that is not true, but that is a rumour running. It is going to be closed, apparently, for six months for upgrades, and that means all that rock from the quarry is going to come down the road. That is another concern for the minister; there is going to be a big kick-up about that. This is all going round and round, so I would appreciate a meeting, minister, where we can just sit down and thrash it out. If it is going to go, I do not want to let it go without a last-ditch effort.

I want to commend Mr John Geber on all he has done. He has outlaid a huge amount of time, effort and money in relation to this. It is sad that we have a tourism destination like the Barossa and we have these ships carrying tourists who want to go to the Barossa and we cannot make this connect. I cannot believe that is the case.

In relation to the railway crossings, we do support this. Wherever possible, it would be great if we could do away with rail crossings altogether by putting unders and overs, putting the road underneath. I think that is the long-term plan, because I believe—and the minister would agree with me—that rail is the future. It is the way ahead for freight and it is the way ahead to move our grain. We now have a deep-sea port at Port Adelaide, and I thank the minister for that on the record.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What about that lovely new road?

Mr VENNING: Gomersal? You are right—the new road—exactly right. The whole system is good. So, the government can, if it puts its mind to it, get something right, but not often. I am happy to give the minister that accolade. He has to admit that I have done it regularly in relation to that. For years I have battled for that port site and every time the minister was going to put it in the wrong place, and you, minister—maybe you are the last cab on the rank—put it in the right place, and that is good. The next thing we will see is the continuing push to bypass Adelaide, with the railways behind the Adelaide Hills. This, of course, will then alleviate the problems of rail crossings on our major roads.

When we talked about putting a port down at Port Stanvac, the main issue was crossing main roads like Anzac Highway and Brighton Road. You can imagine what the railway crossings would be like. That was one of the chief things against having the port down there. Imagine how long those roads would be cut as those huge grain trains went across. I think in future, if we are going to put up projects like that, we must design out level crossings. We cannot have them there; we have got to have something else in its place. I think the future is rail and I look forward to what happens in the future, certainly with our rail crossings. I just hope that we can have all our rail crossings protected by flashing lights.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:42): I, too, rise to support the Rail Safety (Safety Coordination) Amendment Bill 2011. I think this bill comes before us not before time in regard to rail and road safety throughout this state. Over many years, there have been far too many accidents on rail crossings, whether they be in the urban environment, around the City of Adelaide, or out in the rural areas.

The member for Schubert mentioned how, after many years of discussions, finally some reflectors have been put on freight cars that go through our country regions. I remember as a member of Rural Youth many years ago that motions were put through to our state body about putting reflectors on freight cars because far too many people, for a range of reasons, do not look, hear or see and, all of a sudden, sadly, you have fatalities, sometimes multiple fatalities, at railway crossings right throughout the state.

We also have the lunacy of some people in cars or trucks who think they can outrun a train to a railway crossing and, too often, because of their impatience, it has become a major, fatal mistake which has brought premature death to many people, and it could have easily been avoided. Sometimes, you look at how these accidents happen and you wonder why they happened and how they should not have happened. You hear reports of even local truck drivers who cross certain crossings all the time in their work life who all of a sudden think they can dodge a train and, sadly, they do not, and there are more injuries and fatalities.

I note that the Australian Rail Track Corporation is running a lot of the lines now throughout the state, and some of these are operated by Genesee & Wyoming. Through my electorate of Hammond, the main lines are the south-eastern line heading through to Melbourne, the Mallee line out to Pinnaroo and also the line through to Karoonda and Loxton.

The main line is obviously the Melbourne line and there have recently been upgrades right along it for sidings to cope with trains two kilometres long so that they can pull off for trains coming from the other direction. On the Mallee line, there are quite a few train crossings and there are different theories as to why that is because anyone who has travelled out to Pinnaroo will realise how many times the road bends. There is a theory that, when they built the Mallee Highway, they were paid to build corners. I have not confirmed that; I need to have a look at that, but there are certainly several theories. If you drive down there, you certainly realise how many S-bends and rail crossings there are.

Thankfully, in recent years, flashing lights have been put on some of those crossings out towards Wilkawatt and Jabuk, which takes into consideration the safety aspects of crossing that line. Certainly on the Karoonda-Loxton line, there has been an increase in rail traffic in recent times with the Australian Zircon mine. That is currently not operating; we are waiting to see if that kicks into gear again. They have some rehabilitation issues that they need to clean up but they were using the rail (which I thought was a good use of the rail out there) to transport their sands through to port, put it in containers and run it through to Adelaide. They were obviously under speed restraints on that line because of the state of the line and the sleepers, but it is a very good use of rail and it certainly keeps many more trucks off the road.

Also in my electorate, we have the famous Cockle Train. I think the new word for cockles—pipis—does not quite work: 'Pipi Train' does not quite sound the same. However, the Cockle Train goes from Strathalbyn to Victor Harbor. There are quite a few crossings all the way through the Fleurieu and a lot of these do not have flashing lights. They just have rail crossing signs and, because of the infrequency of that train, sometimes people do not take enough care in crossing that line. People need to take care wherever there are lines and wherever they cross them.

I also note, with regard to the main south-eastern line through to Melbourne, that in my electorate it goes on either side of the road, but there is a road bridge that goes over the line at Tailem Bend, so there is no issue there. However, there are a lot of little side roads for farmers and businesspeople to access properties and they need to take extra care when crossing these lines because the trains do not back off for towns like they used to. A lot of them trundle through at 100 km/h, and generally they can do that very safely because people are aware of how they run, but I remember through Tailem Bend years ago they did use to slow down, but now a lot of them go through at a reasonable speed.

The member for Schubert mentioned trains going around the city and bringing the freight back in from the north, and I commend Regional Development Australia and the Rural City of Murray Bridge. They certainly have my support with the intermodal project that has been going along for several years out at Monarto where in the future, hopefully, we will have road, rail and air connect. We have quite an industrial hub at Monarto: we have mining accommodation, Adelaide Mushrooms, Scott's Transport and Big W's distribution centre. Apart from that, it is only a few kilometres from the growing metropolis of Murray Bridge.

I think it would bring many gains for city dwellers, and especially for Hills dwellers, if the rail did take our freight around to the north of Adelaide, perhaps coming in at Roseworthy. Then, any freight that had to come into Adelaide would come back in from the north and any that did not need to go into Adelaide would just bypass and go on, whether it was heading north or west. It would save a lot of the angst for trains, which are sometimes up to two kilometres long, coming through the Hills, and it is a struggle getting through the Hills.

People talk about having a fast train to Adelaide from Murray Bridge but I can tell you that it is not going to happen at the moment. I think the only way it could happen would be to build another line with the freeway and run a connector down Cross Road, for example. It would be quite a major job because Murray Bridge is two hours by rail from Adelaide, and it is just too far at the moment, and because of the logistics of running through the Adelaide Hills.

I support the future of our freight, and some of our passenger rail could divert around Adelaide and so lessen by quite a number the trains that have to come through the Adelaide Hills into Adelaide. I certainly support the direction of the bill, that is, getting rail operators, private operators, government operators and road operators together to work out safety procedures at crossings. It is vitally important, it has the potential to save many hundreds of lives in the future, and it would be of great benefit to the state.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:51): I, too, rise to support this bill, and I am very pleased to see it come before the house. It is a subject that is dear to my heart. I must declare an interest in that I am something of a train buff and have been for many years.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 20 minutes!

Mr TRELOAR: I have 20 minutes. It takes a lifetime, Madam Deputy Speaker—it can take a lifetime. I have gained much pleasure and enjoyment from watching trains over many years, particularly those on Eyre Peninsula. At this point, I would like to mention the Eyre Peninsula Rail Preservation Society, of which I am a member. I am not such an active member these days, but the society does a wonderful job preserving more than 100 years of rail history on Eyre Peninsula.

In the very early days, as has already been mentioned by members on this side, rail was very much a part of opening up the country and the land to settlers and farming operations in South Australia. Particularly on Eyre Peninsula, in conjunction with early settlement, it provided transport for freight and passengers—tea and sugar, if you like—and was very important. It is not so important these days because the freight is grain only. However, by my calculations, in some years, particularly on the southern end of the rail on Eyre Peninsula, it can carry up to 10 per cent of Australia's entire wheat crop, so it is quite a commendable effort for a railway that was—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, it did. It has recently been upgraded. To the member for Hammond, I say that the trains may travel at 100 km/h in his neck of the woods but they certainly do not on Eyre Peninsula. It is only a narrow light gauge but it does provide a wonderful service. The intention of this bill is to implement the effective joint management of level crossings. This issue has been highlighted to me by constituents. The railway on Eyre Peninsula travels mostly along the highway on public lands, but sometimes it also bisects property and a landowner may have portions of his farm on either side of the railway.

One particular landowner came to me some time ago and asked who was responsible for the rail crossings. I said that I would get back to him, and I am pleased that I am now able to say that it will be a joint effort to discuss and accept responsibility for these crossings. The constituent approached me because he had had an accident on a crossing on his property, travelling from one side of the farm to the other. It was a serious accident and he was lucky to survive. He is well now and back farming, and I am pleased about that.

The minister is also aware of the discussions that I have been involved with around road train access on Eyre Peninsula. Given that the railway on EP travels adjacent to the highway, what we are finding is that often there is not enough room for road trains and B-doubles to turn off the highway, stop at the railway line and not have the back part of their vehicle hanging out over the—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Yes. The situation is vice versa coming from the railway line crossing onto the highway. The same situation occurs. It is potentially a very dangerous situation and I know that some efforts are being made to address this with the construction of slipways onto the highways but it has not entirely solved the problem.

There are just a couple of flashing light crossings on the Eyre Peninsula. For the most part, it is merely signposted. I have noticed of late that a large number of crossings now have stop signs erected at the rail crossing. My opinion is that this is not entirely suitable either. In the situation where a heavily laden truck is required to stop completely, I understand that line of sight is important, but oftentimes a 'give way to trains' sign, I think, would be more appropriate.

I am very pleased to support the bill, and I am pleased that it has come to this house and we can finally know who is responsible for the crossings. I suggest we have still got a little way to go before the issue is addressed completely. As I understand this bill, both parties or all parties will have a responsibility under this act to provide outcomes with regard to rail crossings. With those words, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Flinders, and thank you for your shortish contribution—

Mr Treloar: Given that I am a train buff.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —given that you are a train buff. I am surprised that you did not bring your anorak into the chamber.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:56): I will be very brief; I know the Minister for Transport probably has to catch a train somewhere. I am a great fan of rail transport, both passenger and freight. In my judgement, most of the accidents involving rail crossings are a result of stupidity by motorists and other road users. Very rarely does the train jump out and attack the motorist, so I think the first point is that people need to use a bit of common sense, which unfortunately is not all that common, when they approach a rail crossing. The habit of some people trying to beat a freight train is just too silly for words.

The point I want to make, and I have raised this over the years, is that I am still puzzled why—particularly with freight locomotives but also suburban trains—we do not have a yellow flashing light on top of the cabin. People say, 'Well, why do you need that?' If they do not work and they are a waste of time, someone should tell all the airport authorities and road construction gangs that those flashing yellow lights are invisible and no-one ever sees them.

I think it is a very inexpensive safety measure to have one on top of the locomotive cabin. They do attract people's attention and I believe if they had been used in the past, and I think a move may be afoot to install them, it would have saved a lot of lives, particularly in cases like that tragic accident at Kerang. Even on suburban trains, I think anything that makes people aware and catches their eye, as the yellow flashing light does, is worth considering.

Years ago, I argued that on the freight cars behind the locomotive, they should have reflective strips on the side of each wagon. In fact, I suggested that, if they were worried about the cost, they might like a company to sponsor some for advertising because, by definition, people at crossings will be looking at those freight cars as they go past.

I think some simple things can be done. As I say, I have lobbied federal and state ministers over many years, trying to get some simple safety things: the flashing yellow light on top of the locomotive cabin and the reflective strips along the freight wagons, behind the locomotive. I think some of those simple things would have saved lives in the past. I understand that maybe some moves are afoot to do some of those things now, but I do not know why it has taken so long. Anyway, I commend this bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure) (12:00): I must say that there are 978 level crossings in South Australia, and I was fearful that I might be going to hear a little bit about each of them during that debate! The truth is that this is the latest in a series of improvements to level crossing safety. It is not the only thing that has been done, of course; in fact, I can turn my mind back to the very early days when I first became the minister and I attended the aftermath of the accident between a school bus and a train at the Salisbury Interchange. It was a very distressing event, and there has been a great focus on level crossing safety out of that.

There has been a program to improve local level crossing safety in the city. In relation to some of the matters raised by the member for Unley, we have, in fact, two very significant bids high up the priority list with Infrastructure Australia in terms of ARTC level crossing grade separations at the Goodwood Junction and the Torrens Junction, and I think he would be very pleased that they were successful, and we are very hopeful in relation to those. As I pointed out, this is something that deals with a matter that has been ongoing. It is a national approach, and it is something that the National Transport Commission did a regulatory impact survey on.

It is, I think, a very effective way to go about what we are seeking to do. I would point out that in our case, for example, it formalises under legislation what we as the department of transport would have been doing informally in a great many places with rail operators, but I think it is necessary to have that formality to make sure that everyone is doing their bit. I must congratulate the member for Schubert for his usual way of managing to talk about every subject other than the bill. It is a great gift that he has in this place, and he does it enthusiastically.

In terms of some of the matters raised by the lead speaker, I will try to address some of them now and to minimise what he needs to address in committee. In terms of the interaction with the Native Vegetation Act, my understanding is that they will still have to comply with the Native Vegetation Act. I can check this, but I believe the Native Vegetation Act does have provisions about removing native vegetation in terms of safety. They would still have to comply with that act, but I do not think the act has prevented us, for example, from being able to improve safety at our crossings.

On the issue about what the interface is, it is what it needs to be. The plan will need to take into account the needs of a particular junction, and that may well go into the road owned by the road operator in terms of line of sight issues. So, it will be what is needed. In terms of whether we could provide template agreements, it is true, I think, that some 30-odd councils have north of 500 level crossings. So, obviously it is a very big job for councils, and that is why significant time has been allowed to develop these. In that regard, we have the State Level Crossing Strategy Advisory Committee, and it is working to develop template interface agreements and guidelines.

It is chaired by DTEI representatives, and it has the Level Crossing Unit, Heritage Rail SA, all of the main rail infrastructure operators, the ARTC, and three representatives will be there from the LGA, and they will seek to do develop templates and guidelines. I would point out that this work has been done in some other states, and some of the other jurisdictions which produced this earlier have guidelines we can draw upon when we do that work with them. So, we will seek to make it as easy as it can be for those councils.

I think the NTC estimated the total cost to implement this at about $1.3 million out to 2020, so we are not talking about huge burdens on anyone in that regard. Having said all that, I think I have answered the points I can recall the lead speaker making, but I am quite happy, if there is something specific in clause 7, to address anything he needs to know. I recommend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I thank you for the answers provided as part of your closing comments. You have referred to the fact that there are going to be 978 crossings in place. I am therefore presuming that a separate interface agreement is required for each. You have also confirmed that there are over 500 that relate to local government roads. Can you provide me with a breakdown of how many private roads there may be and how many state roads there are?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have those two, but I do not have the private roads, and you would see that the regime is not quite as restrictive on the road owner in terms of a private road. The responsibility on those private roads falls upon the rail operator to give notice, as I understand it, to the private road owner. It will not be as onerous for those private road operators, but I will have to get back to you on how many of those there are.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think, for the benefit of the member for Flinders who asked questions in regard to the farmer he mentioned, where the rail line actually splits his property, I would therefore assume that what he is talking about is not actually a road as you and I may define it; it is a track between sections. Is that still considered as part of this agreement to be a road and therefore the private road interface agreement is required?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It would, as I understand it, be a road because it is there for the purpose of getting a vehicle across the line, so there would be an interface between vehicles and rail. In those circumstances, as I understand the regime, what would occur is that the rail operator would examine what safety measures are needed there and, if necessary, give a notice to the road owner about things that would need to be done or precautions that would need to be taken. It would not fall upon the farmer to determine that he had a road that was an interface; it would fall to the rail operator, and I think that is probably the best way in those circumstances.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given that are so many agreements that will be needed, I am a little bit unsure on my review of the bill, as to the time expectations. You referred to a 2020 period, but can you just provide an outline to the committee?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We have set a time line of three years. Can I say, I should have said, in answering your other questions, one of the roles of the rail safety regulator will be an educative one. There will be, I think, 12 months of going out there and telling people all of the things they need to be doing. I point out that we are not dealing with the circumstances of things having to be done. A great deal of this has been done informally, and we are talking about formalising it. So, the rail regulator will go out and spend a period of time educating people as to their obligations, and I think we are contemplating having their agreements drawn up in three years. I point out that some of them, of course, will be done before then. We have already have existing arrangements with rail operators, and it is merely a matter of formalising those in many circumstances.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Therefore, for the benefit of private road owners, the rail operator will identify the risks and they will approach them with some form of template agreement on which the private road owner will be asked to sign off. Can you envisage any possibility in which some form of modification to that private road access over the rail line will be required and, if that is evident, who is therefore responsible for that cost? That is where I can see the greater impasse potentially coming, where the farm operator does not want to be responsible for a cost and he still wants to maintain his access over the line, but the operator identifies the risk and therefore an agreement needs to be reached. If there is some form of impasse, I know that the adjudicator is there, but is there the opportunity to still sit down and negotiate? Also, will the operator be prepared, in any instances, to make a contribution towards modification requirements?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In the first instance—and I really do not know whether it would occur—such matters would be required to be agreed between the parties. So, it would not be the case of the rail operator opposing an obligation on a private road owner. The nature of the act is one that requires agreement between the parties. The only difference with the private road operator is to take away that responsibility for formulating it from the road owner so that private road owners, who may not know that they are supposed to be doing anything, are not going to be the subject of massive fines because they have not done something.

It would require there to be an agreement and, on my understanding, in the case of a dispute, there is a role for the regulator. The bill will not allow the rail operator to impose some onerous obligation on the road owner or to close the road. That would be a matter for agreement. If there were a strong argument for it, I assume it would go to the regulator, but the model is for agreement between the parties.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I am like you in that I hope there is no need to go to the regulator, but presumably there will be. In this instance, if the regulator then determines a position, is there any opportunity for a subsequent third-party review of that decision? I do not want to complicate matters, but I am wondering whether some form of natural process allows for a judicial review by any other person—a traffic engineer or rail engineer—who might have expertise in these areas?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I would have to take it on notice. There are two options: it does not have to be the rail regulator; I can appoint someone to do that work. I will get an answer for you between the houses, if you like, but I suspect it would only be a matter of judicial review, certainly not an established repeal process, as I understand it, in any of the provisions of the rail act. So, I think it is likely to be a judicial review but I imagine it being a very unlikely circumstance.

The thing is, if you see the NTC regulatory impact being something like $1.3 million, it is obviously not contemplated that you are going to see major structural changes because, believe me, for a major structural change at a level crossing, your $1.3 million is going to be gone very, very quickly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: An issue was raised by the member for Flinders when he talked about the proximity of rail lines to highways and, with larger vehicles these days, the serious risk of the trailer being exposed if they have to stop when turning off a road to cross over a rail line and vice versa when they want to enter a road after crossing over a rail line. I suppose there are two components of the question. Where are the various responsibilities?

Going back to my previous comments, where the rail reserve is quite wide and the road reserve immediately joins it—and this can relate either to DTEI roads or local government roads—does the rail operator have total responsibility for that portion of the road that rests upon its rail reserve, or does the road operator have some form of right of way that creates a legal impost upon them to have responsibility for the road that is on the rail reserve?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think there may be two things. First, if there are investments to be made on property owned, you would imagine it would be the responsibility of the person who owns the property, but the boundary of the interface, if you like, is something to be agreed between the parties on examination of risk. The whole point of this is so that the rail operator cannot say, 'I own this bit, I only have to do this bit.' It is about the two parties identifying between them, in their joint area, what needs to be done to improve safety.

I would imagine if something needs to be done entirely on rail land and it was to be an investment, then that would fall to the rail owner, which would only seem reasonable. As you can see from the numbers, you are not talking about a great deal of infrastructure investment in this, as opposed to things that improve safety. One of the things you have to be very careful of—and I think everyone has noticed this—is that, with more and more level crossings being signalised, people take it for granted that all level crossings are signalised, and if they are not signalised, then there is nothing to worry about. We do not want to get into that area because, obviously, as the member for Stuart would know, that is not going to be possible in many rail crossings. The cost of infrastructure is not likely to be high at all, and that is the NTC's regulatory analysis.

Can I say about the other matter that was raised about trucks that are too long for the roads that it is not just in a rural setting. I recall that there is one in the Barossa where they designed the road and rail parallel to each other before we had the multi-trailer trucks. It is very, very hard to fix without closing one or the other. All I know is that in those circumstances someone is going to be unhappy.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister is dead right—someone will be unhappy. In the old days of the six-tonne Bedford truck there was a much better chance to get it off the road and over the railway line and for everybody to be safe.

Mr Pederick: With 10 tonnes on it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, with 10 tonnes on it, overloaded, but they wanted to get as much as they could.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Everyone thinks the other guy should move.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. I will come back to part of my previous contribution where I talked about the member for Taylor and I being involved in an issue with the Mallala district council and rail operators there, with four crossings suggested to come down to two. I suppose there is a cost. As part of your contribution, you referred to where a slip lane has been installed. That is a cost to the road operator to do that, presumably, not the rail operator.

There might be a desire in many cases to improve infrastructure to ensure that level of safety exists, but there is a lack of capacity to fund it. You have that challenge when it comes to DTEI roads. Local government has that challenge also. So, it is not just the native vegetation issue that might impact on it, it is that.

As an adjunct to my statement here, will any efforts be made to try to attract funds from another, higher level of government, the feds? Where the interface agreements do identify that infrastructure modifications need to take place to improve risk management issues, there might be an opportunity for outside funding to assist, or will it solely be the responsibility of the rail or the road operator?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. If you look at the regime, it will not be punishing people for not building infrastructure; it is not part of the regime. You have to remember that this is only to formalise things that often have been done informally. We will still have a major responsibility for our roads. For example, in our bids for the Goodwood and Torrens junctions rail grade separations with the commonwealth, from memory we are talking about $400 million worth of work, or something like that. We will still have a major responsibility for making sure our roads and rail work safely together, or work conveniently together. This goes to where cooperation has not been in the past or where people have not made arrangements, and that is more likely to be further down the scale in terms of safety because, obviously, we would have been onto it a lot earlier.

It should be remembered that the primary purpose of this bill is not to go out and impose obligations on people to build infrastructure—it is not. The obligation is to get the parties together to address what the safety issues are around particular level crossings, and that is the matter that will be audited by the rail regulator over time. Have the parties got together? Have they made guidelines for making the place safe? That is the obligation, not to build anything.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (8) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure) (12:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT