HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL SAFETY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2007. Page 1015.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:01): The Greens support this legislation, which we believe will put in place a framework that will help improve the safety of our rail network. The importance of a safe rail network cannot be lost on anyone. It is critical that the public have confidence that, when they travel on rail or they live near railway lines, the network will be safe—that they will be personally safe and that their properties and their vehicles will be safe when they come in contact with the rail network.

The importance of rail in the urban passenger transport context is even more important now than it was in the past, and the reason for that is quite clear. In an era of global warming leading to climate change, it is important that we put in place policies that make sure that as many people as possible are attracted to public transport and, in particular, attracted to rail transport. Whilst the passenger rail network in South Australia is a diesel electric system, there is scope, and I think it should be on the government's agenda to electrify the network. The importance of electrification for climate change is that renewable energy is most likely to be delivered in the form of electricity rather than in the form of other fuel, such as liquid fuels. So, the rail network will play an important part in a sustainable transport future for cities like Adelaide and, indeed, for our entire state.

The media, over the past little while, has been full of bad news stories about rail safety. We have had situations with doors not closing properly, and we had a minor derailment in the yards just out of Adelaide and, sadly, a few people were injured, although, fortunately, only in a minor way. These stories do discourage people from using public transport. Whilst a proper analysis of the statistics would show that you are much safer on a train than you are in a private car, perceptions are important, and people need to feel safe and secure when they travel by train.

The other aspect of rail safety that is important is to make sure that our trains are properly staffed with appropriately qualified security guards. It used to be the norm that staff travelled on every train; in fact, they used to sell tickets to passengers. Previous governments did away with that regime and found that the public's confidence in the rail system suffered. So, we now have guards back on trains after seven o'clock at night, and that is a good thing. However, we need to make sure that our trains are safe at all hours of the day and night, so I would encourage the government to reinstate staff on trains during the day as well as those trains in the evening.

Another aspect of rail safety that is often overlooked is in relation to the rollingstock itself and, in particular, the carriages and their windows. People might think, 'Well, what have windows got to do with rail safety?', but the problem is that, when you have windows that are scratched and covered in graffiti, people cannot see out of them. There are two things that flow from that, and the first is that people feel unsafe and uncomfortable if they are sitting in an environment where they can see that uncontrolled behaviour, such as graffiti, has happened. It does not instil you with confidence when you know there are people out there running amok in the system, and it does not help you to feel safe. When it comes to looking out of those windows, trying to find out what station you are at, trying to work out whether or not this is your stop, there is a real issue there as well.

Safety issues, I guess, come from young people in particular who might miss their stop because the windows are all scratched and identifying signs on the stations have been vandalised, so they do not know whether it is the right stop for them to get off. Whilst these might seem like fairly minor and insignificant issues, they actually combine to form a situation of less than optimum safety on our rail network.

The bill before us, whilst it does not deal with the minutia of rail safety, does help reform the process that can lead to better safety outcomes. With those brief words, I advise that the Greens are happy to support the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (11:07): I rise to support the second reading of this bill, as well. The bill introduces measures agreed at a national level between state transport ministers and authorities to improve rail safety in our country, as well as retaining unique aspects of South Australian law concerning rail safety. I record my gratitude to the minister for providing a briefing on this bill to my office.

We have discovered that Victoria has moved ahead of us and introduced its own bill, and that state will perhaps need to backtrack to fix up things that have arisen as a consequence of these national reforms. I can understand why Victoria might have moved ahead of the pack on rail safety when one considers that recent research indicates that nearly twice as many people are injured at level crossings in Victoria than in any other state. Indeed, the Kerang rail disaster in June was no doubt looming large in Victoria's mind, with 11 families grieving the loss of their loved ones, not to mention the many others injured in that rail accident.

Arising from that briefing, I thought it useful to note that, on the subject of perhaps greatest concern when most people think of rail safety—namely, safety measures at level crossings—we are not seeing laws dealing with that issue at this point. The national coalition of state transport bodies has yet to vote upon these measures (and perhaps that is being held up by the federal election). I do note that rumble strips are likely to be implemented in Victoria to warn road users that they are approaching a rail crossing, and this perhaps demonstrates the need for cooperation between local councils, private property owners and state governments in improving rail safety.

It also became apparent to me, when looking at this bill, that many aspects concerning rail safety were not dealt with in this bill; for example, the way in which local government and private landholders are regulated to ensure pedestrians do not inadvertently access a rail corridor, and ensuring that trespassers do not access them, either. In other words, this bill deals more with railway operators and railway safety workers who, roughly speaking, are drivers, signal operators and maintenance workers. The question of management of access to the rail corridor—and, therefore, fencing, etc., to prevent undesirable access—is dealt with in other legislation. In the briefing, we were told that regulations could be used to bolster the aspect of this bill, and that would be good to see. Rail safety, no doubt, includes ensuring that access to the rail corridor is as well regulated as it can be.

I am grateful to the minister's office, which swiftly provided answers to my questions about the interface of occupational health, safety and welfare law, as it was recently amended by a bill before this chamber, and the laws penalising rail companies for failing to observe OHS&W principles. Clearly, clause 12 of this bill ensures that the OHS&W act prevails, which is a good thing. We would not want this parliament to toughen OHS&W laws across the board, only to be thwarted by weaker laws existing in rail safety legislation. We commend the government for having a provision that ensures that there are no inconsistencies between these two bills which could, potentially, create a lawyers' paradise.

My final topic of specific interest in this bill is the issue of workplace drug testing. I am told that in the railway sector the private operators always have workplace drug testing—and I believe that is a good thing. It appears that the private sector is leaving the public sector for dead on workplace drug testing, and to see railways improving public sector compliance in this regard is a welcome move. The rolling stock, including passenger stock and other machinery used in railways, is so large and significant as to cause considerable injury if a crash occurs. No doubt we must ensure that drivers and other rail safety workers (to use the generic term defined in this bill) are not affected inappropriately by illicit or, indeed, legal drugs to an unsatisfactory extent.

Schedule 2 of this bill sets out the testing regime, and I think it is useful to record my understanding of what is to occur. First of all, I commend the transport minister, as I believe this area (the rail safety area) is a leader in this state, from what I observe in other departments. Certainly, it is taking a while to get SA Police workplace drug testing under way, although significant steps have been made in that regard in recent times. From the briefing, I also understand that it will, in fact, be SA Police who run the testing in the rail safety arena, although provision exists for other rail safety workers to be accredited and trained in this area. Testing all the way through to urine and blood testing is available, should it be required.

Further, I am told that the tolerance level for alcohol will be .02 blood-alcohol concentration, which is certainly tougher than the amount allowed for people who drive motor vehicles. That level applies not only to people who are driving passengers, but can be the BAC limit detected within a prescribed time after the rail safety worker has, for instance, driven the train. The .02 BAC level does appear in the bill and I am informed that that level will be set in the regulations. I suppose that is appropriate because the government can in that way implement its own policies of toughening or weakening that level, and the parliament can disallow regulations when such a thing is done. Family First has questioned the minister's office on this and, again, received a swift reply, for which we are grateful.

I will close by indicating that Family First certainly supports the strengthening of rail safety, not only in South Australia but nationwide. We congratulate the minister for carrying over the drug-testing regime into this part of his portfolio. We support the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (11:14): I thank honourable members for their indications of support for this bill. The Hon. John Dawkins asked a question about the tram, and I hope to have a response for him later on this afternoon. At this stage I will seek leave to conclude my remarks and we can resume on motion and, hopefully, complete the bill this afternoon.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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