HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:10): I always like to make speeches on anything to do with railway lines, and this one is all about the establishing of a rail safety regulator. I note that—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Which is very relevant to the Barossa line.

Mr VENNING: Just wait for it, minister. We will get there, I can assure you. We are considering the introduction of model legislation similar to the one that we introduced here in South Australia in 2006. It is not satisfactory that the various states have different safety regulations and standards; it has been confusing to say the least.

Today most of our train workings are across state borders, and we certainly promote that. Ever since we got rid of the old SAR, we are seeing fewer and fewer internal train movements but more and more across the boarder. This, of course, has made this whole area of different rules confusing. Locomotive operators have had to be fully conversant with each of the states' regulations to avoid confusion.

Rod Hook, as we know, is the Rail Commissioner. I have always had a lot of time for him. He has many responsibilities, and the minister is certainly lucky to have him on board. I have never heard any criticism of Mr Hook. One day, when I am no longer in this place, I would not mind working alongside him because he inspires people. When I was on the Public Works Committee, I was quite impressed with the way he handled himself.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I will pass it on to him.

Mr VENNING: Thank you. We have had many a private moment interstate, and whatever, over the many years that I have been in this place. If you have access to public servants like that, I will give you credit every time. I never let an opportunity go by to discuss our railways when it is appropriate to do so, and in my 22 years here that would be on many occasions. Rail safety is particularly about rail operations bisecting with the general public amenity, particularly rail crossings (motor and pedestrian). With this goes clearance and visual issues: the use of train horns, the provision of warning devices, lights and boom gates—and we need more of these.

I note the fatality last week north of Port Pirie, on the Wardang Island level crossing, where a lady just did not see the train at an unprotected crossing that she would travel over three or four times every day. How often does that happen? Some years ago, I lost my best friend, Mr Murray Marks (who many members would know), when he hit the train at Merriton on an unprotected crossing only one kilometre from his home. He would have crossed that crossing dozens of times a day. I am sure that he was listening to the cricket and just did not look for the train—and he is gone. So I support installing these devices wherever possible. Thankfully, that crossing is now protected. I hope that we will be able to increase the level crossing upgrade program across the state. I know it is expensive, but it is these isolated crossings which are the bad ones.

I am pleased to see at last the use of reflective tape on the side of rail wagons. It was resisted for years, mainly because rail operators did not want the cost of providing and maintaining reflectors and then the legal liability if they were faulty or not visible. However, we have got them and they do work, but it took years and years.

The issue of keeping our rail network safe is most important, and we should try at all times to eliminate train movements over level crossings when alternatives exist, whether that be with the provision of road overpasses or the re-routing of trains wherever practical.

This brings me to another hobbyhorse of mine; of course, that is the rail bypass of Adelaide. This has been discussed at length, ad nauseam, over the last 20 years and the minister would be sick of it, but Mr Ron Bannon of the Pilarna group has raised it with me several times, as have many others. I remind the house again that the corridor is largely already there to allow this, from Tailem Bend to Appamurra, from Cambrai to Sedan and then to branch either to Truro or Eudunda to rejoin the main lines north and east.

A study has been done and recommendations have been made, and I certainly support the option to the east even though it is not far from the rail to be provided from Truro to the existing Barossa Valley line. I do not think I would be too popular if I said that we will link through the Barossa line, because the increased traffic would be huge and I do not think the line would quite take that. So I am pushing quite strongly for the eastern option there.

I believe it should go east and north to join the main line and then continue west to Snowtown and Wallaroo or a point to the north. The obvious site for South Australia's new super port, Myponie Point has all the requirements: a greenfield site, very deep water close in, no other development or houses nearby, and close proximity to the existing rail corridor. It will happen. When you consider the increase in rail and port facilities, we will soon outstrip the capacity of the only port we have on this side of the gulf.

What is happening at Outer Harbor is great with the grain terminal alongside the container terminal, and now with a looping railway line. Again, I commend current minister Conlon for that. On the record, I say it again: as political as we all want to be at times, one has to recognise good performance and the best outcome, and that is what we have. However, living where I do when I am in Adelaide I can see the boats at anchor, and yesterday there were four waiting. This morning I think there were only two, but I have seen up to five ships waiting out there. So it is obvious that we will have to revisit this within five to 10 years—probably before the minister retires (no response, Mr Acting Speaker).

The bypass of Adelaide will be opposed by some, but I believe that freight that does not need to come into Adelaide should not. Freight going on to Darwin or Perth or east to Sydney should not go through metropolitan Adelaide, especially as we are seeing more and more hazardous cargoes on trains. The Adelaide Hills are also a natural barrier for these large freight trains, particularly with the low tunnels and the bends, which do limit the double stacking of containers through that area. All containers coming from Melbourne have to be single stacked and then re-stacked in Adelaide, which is very inefficient. So everything points to this, but we just do not seem to be able to get over that hurdle.

Where I live on the farm at Crystal Brook we have a main train line right at the front, and there is a lot of history to that. Over the years that my father was a member in this place, they put that railway line there, and those who are old enough might remember that there was some dispute; my father did not win on that occasion, and we copped the railway line. I do not mind at all, because I love to see these huge trains, which are up to three kilometres long with double-stacked containers all the way. That is the way to move things; one driver and all those movements. It is fantastic.

Where I sleep is only two kilometres from the junction of the south, east and west lines, so there is a lot of activity just around there; the north actually divides up the track beyond Port Augusta. I regularly see the huge trains—about three kilometres long, as I said—with double-stacked containers and only one driver. Surely this is more efficient and safer than, say, 100 semitrailers, especially for these long hauls. I get quite enthused about this, and encourage heavy freight to be off the roads that are shared with people in their cars.

Returning to safety standards, which is what this rail safety legislation is all about, I note the shadow minister's comments about drug and alcohol testing. I was rather surprised that police are not notified of an offence at this point in time. I thought 'Wow. Just think about the responsibility of a driver of a train who has had a few too many, or worse than that, drugs—or even worse than that again, both.' I cannot believe that that should be the case; it should really be a huge offence. Think about the responsibility on the driver to be totally in control.

I hope the BAC levels for this will be the same as for bus drivers—that is, zero. Therefore, this is a significant area of policy reform, and reporting to police is mandatory. Do (or could) the police perform these random tests? I think they could. I know you cannot stop a train for a blood alcohol test, but they do stop often. Out the front of our home at Crystal Brook there is a double line and they often stop there waiting for trains to come past. It is a great spot for a police car to pull over and say, 'G'day, driver. This is a mandatory breath test. Blow in here.' I have never seen it. I cannot see any reason why not. So, let's see what happens after this legislation.

Also, fatigue is an area which has been discussed today. It is an important issue. I note in recent times the addition of crew vans on most large freight trains, offering off-duty drivers the opportunity to take rest and relaxation. Good, but I do not want these crew vans to be Bluebird rail cars. I also note that almost all of the level crossings on the Gawler-Barossa line are protected, and I note that the Penrice Stone Train began operating again last week. We certainly welcome that and, again, we realise how easy it would be to introduce a daily passenger train service and put the Barossa Wine Train back on track. I could not let the opportunity pass, minister, to mention that.

My last desire, as a long-term MP in this place, would be to re-establish—after a new Barossa hospital and the wine train—the country passenger rail service. I would love to be able to catch the train from Crystal Brook to Adelaide, as my father did for many years. We have the rolling stock and the track is already there. Only the desire by government to do it is the problem. Surely, this is all about community safety as well. I commend the bill to the house and I also commend the shadow minister for her work. Again, I commend the minister. I do not often hand out accolades; I have done it two or three times to him.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:22): I would also like to contribute to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Bill—a very important bill. Let me first say that Port Pirie has had a long association with the rail industry over many years. Port Pirie was unique in that it had the three different rail gauges going through our community, requiring all trains (both passenger and freight) to come into our city and to transfer all the passengers and all the freight. As the member for Schubert has indicated just a minute ago, the rail system, including Crystal Brook, has had a great history in the rail industry.

One of the issues that I feel bad about is that it is diminishing. In regional South Australia we seem to be getting fewer passenger and freight trains into the regions. However, this bill is regarding rail safety. We, as Australians, have had a long association with the rail activities across this vast continent. South Australia, in particular, has always been a leader in rail safety; however, we always must ensure that the train operations have a consistent regulation and operation facility across all the state borders.

As the member for Schubert has indicated, one of the issues that you can take on board that may not be evident is fatigue. I drive a fair bit in my job as the elected member for Frome, and we do get fatigued just driving a car but we can stop and pull over on the side of the road, put the seat back and have a kip. A train driver cannot do that, and it is one of the issues we have to identify: that we have the same fatigue laws for South Australian operators so that when they are transferring into Western Australia or Victoria, they have the same qualifications and requirements.

I agree with the member for Schubert about drugs and alcohol, in particular. Again, a lot of people do not understand the unseen effects that drugs and/or alcohol can have on the ability of a driver—whether of trains, trucks or other vehicles—to be able to react. With a train, you cannot just stop within a short distance. You need to have the same requirements across all states. The other thing we really need to take on board, and I hope this is being looked at very seriously, is the unseen issue of depression. Train drivers, vehicle drivers and even people in this house may have depression and you do not see it on the surface so you need to be able to be on top of that and to identify that, and the criteria for all states across national lines should be the same.

As I said earlier, Port Pirie had the great privilege of having three different rail gauges in the city which resulted in all the trains having to stop there and which created many, many jobs. Unfortunately, the state government of the time did not allow the trains to come into Port Pirie, using the excuse of re-laying rail sleepers or standardising them between Port Pirie and Crystal Brook, and allowed the bus services, which were not usually allowed, to come into Port Pirie. From that day, our rail systems and passenger service operations were completely eliminated.

However, we now need to look forward and I certainly commend the bill and congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. The aim of it is to have one national rail safety regulator who will provide the rail industry with a consistent and reliable co-regulatory approach, and we need to do that because there are no differences in the requirements between each of the states. This will become a common approach to the prescription of drug and alcohol requirements and fatigue management. As I said earlier, I hope it will take on board how to identify if the train operator or the staff have an unknown issue with depression and also take on board any hard issues with their general health and things like that. We need to be very, very careful.

Trains are an integral part of the growth of Australia. They should be increasing their operations and their presence across all of South Australia and into the Northern Territory, accommodating and growing the grain industry and the resource opportunities. I certainly will be supporting this bill and I commend it to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:27): I join with my colleagues and the member for Bragg (the shadow minister for transport) in supporting this bill. Heavy freight, whether it be rail, road or whatever, will and must become more efficient into the future and it cannot become more efficient without becoming safer at the same time. Any legislation that improves the safety of rail freight will get my support and I thank the Minister for Transport and his colleagues for bringing this forward.

Port Augusta has a very, very proud history with regard to rail. Listening to all the speakers so far and thinking back to what safety would have been like 100 years ago, I point out the fact that 2012 is the centenary of the turning of the first sod in Port Augusta to build the railway line; a very, very important date which I know will be celebrated this year. One hundred years ago things would not have been too safe; they are much, much safer today but we cannot rest on our laurels. Whether in two, 10 or 20 years, this is a battle we have to keep fighting and I hope that political parties, whoever is in government, keep bringing forward ways to make our rail and other heavy freight transport systems much safer.

I would also like to point out that rail is still very important to Port Augusta. Certainly it has declined over the last couple of decades with regard to its prominence and its ability to employ people but it is still vitally important. The work done by Downer EDi Rail there is very significant. They are one of the most important employers in Port Augusta and around our region and I commend them for the work they do and for their contribution to our local economy. The local economy, of course, is supported by rail in more ways than that. Mining, grain freight, tourism and many facets of our economy are supported by rail freight so our ongoing support for rail on both sides of the house is critically important.

The other thing I would like to point out is that in the Port Augusta area—not just in town but in the general area—there are opportunities for us to make rail freight even more efficient (and this is not rail at the expense of road freight). There are ways for us to improve the way in which rail and road interact, and also ways to improve Port Augusta. I firmly believe that one day down the track—I do not expect it to be today, tomorrow or this year—we ought, regardless of who is in government, to be pushing for the removal of the Spencer Junction rail yards in Port Augusta and using that extremely valuable land right on the edge of the gulf for other purposes and putting a bimodal or multimodal freight hub on the outside of Port Augusta, whether on the north of the town where the Stuart Highway intersects the railway line, out the back of Stirling North somewhere or down at Winninowie, where I understand plans are progressing quite well from the proponents of that scheme. Something like that certainly has to happen in the not too distant future.

While we work on safety and efficiency, we have to look into the future at all the various opportunities, and I remind the house and all of South Australia that that is an important opportunity here in South Australia. I thank the minister for bringing this forward—you certainly have our support. Heavy freight efficiency is absolutely vital for the development of our state and nation. It is a big enough industry that we to not need independent, separate rules in South Australia. It makes very good common sense to have rules across the nation. We can never forget safety while we pursue efficiency.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:32): I thank members for their contribution. I thank the member for Schubert for his kind words; they make me slightly nervous because when you hear kind words from the opposition in this place it is usually when you are retiring, so I do hope he does not know something I don't. I thank him anyway and hope his words had no deeper meaning than coming from a good honest fellow.

The bill before us is one to which I have a great deal of personal commitment. I am trying to be a much nicer man these days, so I would like to find things with which I can agree with the lead speaker of the opposition. One of the things on which we agree is that national regulation is not the best answer for everything. We have seen, I think, some reforms that are better than others in that regard. It is wrong to believe that national regulation is the best answer for every industry, everything and every calling, in my view. It is equally wrong to believe that national regulation is always wrong, and rail movement, transport in particular, is an area where there should be national regulation. Many federal governments going back over decades would have been better served to have focused on these areas rather than the general view that Canberra or a national approach will do everything better.

If you look in South Australia—and it is always good to hear from members who have Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Peterborough in their electorates, as those towns have such a rich history in rail—we can see that we have had some great things come out of being a group of colonies that federated, but there have been drawbacks from that. I do not think any more single, material example of that could be found than to go to Peterborough and look at, I think, the largest turntable in the Southern Hemisphere, and that is because every colony had its gauge and they all met in the middle of Australia at this enormous turntable. You need to take a balanced viewpoint to national regulation. It is obvious that transport in particular has suffered through the accidents of history in converting colonies to a national polity.

What I would say to the member for Bragg is that I believe, firstly, that this is necessary for two very good reasons: one is that the nature of transport is that it crosses state borders. It is foolish to think that a train operating on a now consistent gauge going over the border should suddenly be subject to a different set of safety regulations. There is a best way of doing things, and the rail operators pay for that duplication. There was much talk about what the cost is, make no mistake; rail operators pay for duplication in regulation. If they have to abide by different systems, it makes no sense.

The second major point I would make is, even if you do not go across a state border, there is a single best practice. This is rail; there must be a best practice. So, what we should seek to do is find that best practice and make sure that everyone in Australia who operates in rail knows what it is, and can do it. I always believe that regulation—in particular, safety regulation—is extremely important, but it should have no heavier touch than it needs to, and it should cost no more than it should; therefore, we believe this is the right model.

It has taken a very long time to get to this point. The resistance from other states about what they see as their sovereignty, area of expertise or their legislative competency has made it very hard to get everyone to agree, and what you have to do in this federation is to get everyone to agree. We have got to that point, and I would hope we could proceed from here with it safely. What I would say to those who think it may not be such a good idea is that, in all of the time that I have bringing these, I cannot bring one where, not only do we have all the agreement, but the industry itself is a very, very strong advocate for it, and the union is a strong advocate for it.

It would seem to me, being the modest man that I am, that, even if I doubted it, I would not substitute my opinion for that of the panel of experts, the national regulators, the national bodies, the unions that operate in this industry and the industry itself. I think when you have that weight of opinion, you have to concede that they have probably got it right.

I do not want to pass without saying that it was the initiative of the national rail industry associations to have this situated in South Australia. We welcome this, but can I say that it was a recognition of the quality of the work performed by our bureaucrats, who are often criticised in this place. I think it is simply fair to put on the record the regard in which they are held by the national industry associations, and the fact that this was the first choice for quality of regulation by national industry. I am not giving them any more money for it, but they can have an accolade while I am here. I am happy to answer any questions, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): Shadow minister, if you could indicate where you want to start?

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. I am sure that you are aware that the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Bill actually comprises about 37 clauses which introduces the bill and repeals the old law, and then establishes, as a schedule—which is the main part of this bill—the new national law. I have only one question in relation to the substance of the bill on double jeopardy, which is at clause 6.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): I will put clauses 1 to 5 and then I will come back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I will be happy to do when we get to the schedule, if I am allowed, is to ask questions on each of the sections that are the substance of the bill. If I am not permitted to do that (and that is often the usual course when we are attaching a bill), then I will ask them all at clause 1 and at other clauses in the middle of the bill. I think it would be easier for the minister and anyone reading this to follow the bill if the questions are asked specifically on the clauses in the schedule.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): That sounds reasonable.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms CHAPMAN: This clause relates to the no double jeopardy rule, which essentially provides that, if someone has committed an offence under any other law, whether that is presumably the criminal law or some occupational health and safety law, they cannot be also prosecuted, or at least cannot be liable to be punished for an offence under this. I assume that means that they can actually be convicted of an offence but they cannot actually be punished for it still under this bill even if they have actually been convicted under other legislation. Is that the way you are reading that? So, instead of reading that the double jeopardy rule applies, it sets out here specifically to say that the offender is not liable to be punished for the offence against the Rail Safety Act. Does that mean that they can still be convicted under it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is an interesting question. I would have thought that a conviction in itself is a punishment. Even if no penalty attaches to having been convicted, the fact of being convicted would be, I would think, something that most people would find as being something they do not like in and of itself. I will check here, but I would have thought that it means that you cannot bring a conviction. I will check that for you. My officers agree that that would be the case.

Clause passed.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that clause 5 has two clerical errors: one is in subparagraph (a) where it reads 'Part 6' but it should read 'Part 7'; and then subparagraph (b) reads 'in Part 9' but it should read 'in Part 10'.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it, Mr Acting Chairman, that there will be some process that will remedy that when the bill is ultimately published, you having issued that edict, which I am sure is right.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): Yes.

Clauses 7 to 37 passed.

Schedule 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to clause 13 of the schedule—Functions and objectives. Paragraphs (a) to (e) appear to replicate exactly what is in the current state legislation, the 2007 act; paragraphs (f) and (g) are what is added, which is really an information, training and education role. I think that paragraph (g) is self-explanatory; and on the basis we are now moving into a sort of regime of a number of jurisdictions, I think it is reasonable. I just wanted to ask: who asked for paragraph (f) to be included?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am advised that, while the formal setting out of it was not in existing law, there was an activity that was undertaken by the regulator, and it was considered that it should be set out in this national law, given that it was already undertaken by the regulator. That is correct. Everyone is good with that.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): Member for Bragg. Are you still on clause 13, or are you moving on?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I think it is out of clause 13. I will just check.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): Just while you are looking for it, I am hoping and expecting that you will do this in numerical order.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am, yes. That is why I was confusing myself when I was questioning about the national regulator. That is not important. Clauses 50 and 51 are the next ones I want to deal with.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): I can move this en bloc at the end, particularly now that you have told me you are going to do it in numerical order. I will not move anything; you now have the call.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clauses 50 and 51 are the principles for rail safety, which are new provisions under the national scheme, and they set out not only what they are to be but also how they are to be applied to the rail safety duties. My question is this: is clause 50 purporting to be some codification of a common law obligation in the sense of who is responsible? Secondly, obviously the regulators themselves are in this list. I am not quite sure how the public generally can have some attributed liability, but it does come to that question because there is no proportion of shared responsibility identified here, I would think for obvious reasons—it can vary. Is it some codification, and where has this come from?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is, to a degree, a codification of some common law provisions that would apply. It also sets out in code the co-regulatory approach. It is probably also consistent with the chain of responsibility provisions that we see now in these sorts of provisions. It does codify some of the common law, but it does not seek to alter the common law in any form.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 54 relates to the duties of persons loading and unloading freight. This is a new area in relation to those who are responsible. We are making provision for them as well. Essentially, as I understand it, the operators have a responsibility overall anyway, but we are now actually putting the people themselves in the duties list. Has there been some incident or history that has warranted this? Perhaps you could tell me where that has come from.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not think there has been any particular incident, if that is what you are asking about it. I think what it is seeking to do is recognise the confusion that applies where a person loading or unloading freight may not be an employee of an operator and therefore about whether the rail act applies or some other species of occupational health and safety laws applies. I think this is seeking to make clear the position of those people working on freight on rail who are not employees of an accredited operator.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is an issue which you may or may not be aware apparently was relevant to this chain of responsibility in trucks: farmers unloading stock and the like, or someone else unpacking the parcels or loading up. They, of course, are not necessarily an employee of anyone who is under the regulation. What does this mean then for anyone who assists, even in a voluntary capacity, in loading and unloading freight, in this case on trains—it might be someone who is helping to unload their suitcase? Do you see where I am going with that? Could we have some clarification?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We do deal specifically with freight, which you would think ordinarily would capture people doing it on a commercial basis. You are right that in a general legislative approach to safety regulation we are seeking to have a chain of responsibility, so that people do not fall through gaps and so that the right people are pursued in the right circumstances. It seeks to do no more than clear up the position of those who are loading freight. I would have thought that in the circumstances (volunteers, in any event) the ordinary common law with regard to negligence and causing accidents would apply.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to clause 55. Is the duty of officers to exercise due diligence again some codification, or is this designed to be consistent with other legislation? What is the basis of this?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It seeks to be consistent with the model of general health and safety law.

Ms CHAPMAN: Subdivision 3, which starts at clause 57, is the meaning of 'safety duty'. It sets out the new category 1, 2 and 3 penalties for failure to comply with that duty. The most severe, minister, as I am sure you are aware, is a category 1 offence. A person commits a category 1 offence if—

(a) the person has a safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom the duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury of illness.

The penalties are $300,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both, for an individual, and up to $3 million for a body corporate. Obviously this is the most severe. Others have diminishing financial penalties. Here, the burden of proof for engaging without reasonable excuse is borne by the prosecution. Is there some reason why that is included?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will seek to get an answer. I would have thought that without it being there it would have been the prosecution's burden, given the nature of the penalties anyway; but I will find out why it is specifically included. It may be that there are other provisions where the burden has changed. I will have to work through it.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there are other provisions in the bill where it has changed you could perhaps give me an answer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will get back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it, minister, with regard to subdivision 3 on the offences and penalties, that again the level of penalty, which is very significant, and the category model that is being introduced, are again all to be consistent with the model work health and safety legislation.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It also seeks to make sure that the penalty provisions have picked out consistent approaches across jurisdictions; so we have sought to please everyone.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to clause 82, the commencement of division 5—Registration of rail infrastructure managers of private sidings. As would be, I am sure, abundantly apparent, I am not an expert on rail or things that go with it, but I think the sidings are those little platforms that enable people to alight from trains. I am not quite sure how this is—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. Are they currently not caught under any of the jurisdictions? It just seems to me that this is a new provision which seems to be broadening the application. Can the minister give us any idea of how many operators there are in South Australia who own these private sidings that are going to have to be regulated?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The duties imposed on the people who operate the private sidings do not change. What has changed is our system of registering the siding. Now it is a system of registering the person, as I understand it, who owns the private siding, but the actual substantive obligations do not change.

Ms CHAPMAN: When we get to clause 95, which concerns the annual fees, you will see, minister, that we now have a provision for annual fees for private sidings. Whilst you say that they are already caught indirectly, we now have a fee for them. What is the expected revenue from private sidings from this annual fee?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will check for you. I do not think it is very large at all. There are always provisions to set fees for the private sidings. As I have said, it is a switch from registering the asset to registering the person. No-one has complained yet.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. M.J. Wright): Always a good sign.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have a new provision under clause 104—Regulator may direct amendment of safety management system. As the minister, I am sure, is aware, the whole legislation requires that there be safety plans, safety reports and so on. Presumably, where there is some deficiency, the regulator can direct an amendment and, I expect, has the ultimate power to withdraw accreditation. This seems to set up a regime where they can give a direction to change something, and a significant financial penalty applies separately if they do not do that and, obviously, the ultimate sanction would be that they could lose their accreditation anyway, it would seem. Is there some reason for this new process being introduced?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In fact, I think it is fair to say that the new process is a little fairer on the person who might be the subject of a direction. There has always been a power to direct, which has rarely been used, I think mainly because people prepare proper systems. What you will see in this now is that that power to direct is proposed to be used and there is substantial cost. The regulator would be required to undergo a cost-benefit analysis before making it and, in fact, I note must consult with the Premier or chief minister or even the Treasurer about doing so. The power that exists, if you like, conditions the way the power would be operated.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


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