HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL COMMISSIONER BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 October 2009. Page 3472.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:20): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Rail Commissioner Bill, which establishes the new position of Rail Commissioner to act as the rail transport operator for the delivery of state government rail infrastructure projects. We know that the state government has embarked on a pretty large rail infrastructure project.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Massive.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Massive, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan says.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Unprecedented.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Unprecedented—a bit like his position. It is bit unprecedented to have somebody of Bernard's standing in the council. It seems a bit surprising that we have had these budget announcements over the past three years (especially over the past two years) about the expansion of the rail network, the electrification of the metropolitan network and some quite significant expansion of the tram network although it appeared at the last budget that that may have been pushed out or dropped off altogether.

The opposition is happy to progress this legislation, but we have had government announcements, talk, spin, razzmatazz and fanfare about all this rail expansion, with the minister often talking about an unprecedented level of investment; in fact, at an infrastructure lunch the other day he talked about all the wonderful things they were doing. However, we are being asked to deal with this bill in the last seven days of this parliamentary term.

It seems a little strange that, once the commitment was given by the government to invest in this rail infrastructure (and, of course, the federal government bailed it out and gave it some money to help it do the major works at Noarlunga and Gawler), we see this legislation coming in at the 11th hour.

Prior to 2008, the Rail Act defined a rail operator as an owner or operator of rail infrastructure or rolling stock, and they were accredited under the act. In 2008, changes to the act altered the accreditation requirements to effective management and control rather than ownership or operation of rail infrastructure and rolling stock. The 2007 rail safety bill implemented the National Rail Safety Bill 2006 developed by the National Transport Commission. The bill was unanimously approved by the transport ministers throughout the Australian Transport Council and was part of the process to implement a nationally consistent framework of regulation of rail safety across the nation and across the national rail network over the following five years. At that time the opposition supported that bill.

This change was part of a process toward a national regulatory scheme, and the bill before us is now the next step. It would appear appropriate; given that the government has gone down the legislative path it has gone down, it is appropriate that we support this bill. The state government now says the bill adheres more closely than any other state to the National Transport Commission's model for rail safety legislation.

Prior to the Rail Act 2007 the state government had absolved TransAdelaide of its responsibility for rail infrastructure assets and any future responsibility for major infrastructure projects such as those announced in the last state budget, as I have briefly talked about. In the recent government briefing it was stated that TransAdelaide was not qualified to manage these big projects that we have had all the fanfare and razzamatazz about.

Two changes have culminated in the need for the government to determine who will effectively manage and control the new rail infrastructure projects. It has been determined that a statutory body corporate is the best option, and that body will be the rail commissioner, who would be constituted by a person accredited under the Rail Safety Act and appointed by the Governor.

It is interesting to note that Mr Rod Hook, who is well respected in South Australia for his ability to deliver major projects, who is the Deputy Executive Director of Major Projects and who oversees a team of staff with expertise in rail infrastructure and operations, has been appointed by the Governor to be the Rail Commissioner for 12 months, pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act or until the enactment of this bill for the progression of contracts. Until then, Mr Hook is required to act as if he is accredited.

If the bill passes, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will apply to the Rail Safety Regulator for Mr Hook's accreditation. Obviously, there is no guarantee that this application will be successful. However, the department is working closely with the regulator to ensure that competence and capacity is demonstrated and the application is successful.

It raises an interesting question about whether there should be a selection process for this position, open to anybody but particularly to public servants and the public, to ensure that the best person becomes our rail commissioner—not that I wish to offer any criticism at all of Mr Hook. He has served the state over the terms of a number of state governments, and he is well respected by all sides of politics. However, my understanding is that, given the interim requirement that Mr Hook must act as if accredited and become accredited once the bill is enacted, he will be unable to perform his role if his application is not successful.

I would like to ask the minister a question when she sums up or when we go through the committee stage of the bill about how you would possibly attract the best person. I am not sure of Mr Hook's age but sadly, like all of us, he will not work forever, so at some point there will be a replacement for Mr Hook. What would happen if the regulator deemed that another applicant might be more appropriate? I would like the minister to get her advisers to contemplate why this position of rail commissioner is not open to anybody.

The rail commissioner will have the following functions: to construct rail structures; to manage and maintain rail infrastructure; to commission and maintain rolling stock; to operate or move rolling stock; to move rolling stock to operate a railway service; to act as a transport operator for the operations carried out by the commissioner; to hold accreditation under the Rail Safety Act; to manage risks associated with railway operations; to operate passenger transport services by train or tram; and to enter into service contracts under the Passenger Transport Act.

That raises another question. We have seen the way the Western Australian government has electrified its rail network. I cannot recall the company involved, but my understanding is that the electrification and supply of all the new rolling stock has been outsourced to another body—almost privatised. The minister might like to offer some answers to these questions.

Does this appointment of a rail commissioner with the functions to enter into service contracts under the Passenger Transport Act, to operate transport services by train or tram and to manage risks associated with the operations (just to point out three) now mean that this will allow a much simpler mechanism for the state government, once it undertakes or goes to tender for the electrification, to privatise our rail assets by offering a long-term supply, maintenance and operation contract for our state rail? I would like some answers from the minister when she sums up.

The rail commissioner will also have the following powers: to enter railway premises for particular functions; to aid and abide by particular conditions regarding the time of entry, safety, financial compensation and notification; subject to ministerial approval, to acquire land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act; and to remove or cut back any tree or vegetation on or overhanging rail infrastructure. This matter was raised within our party room. For example, we have some disused railway lines. Does this allow the rail commissioner to clear vegetation off those disused railway lines?

Also, it appears to be a sensible decision to create a statutory body where the responsibility does not sit with an accredited individual. However, it does provide some questions about conflicts of interest in relation to the current person being proposed, who, of course, is Mr Hook, in that he has a range of other powers. He is the Coordinator-General for the Building the Education Revolution program, and he has a whole range of functions within DTEI, including the delivery of major projects, etc. So, I wonder how the government expects Mr Hook to manage this particular role; is it expecting him to delegate most of his powers and does he have perhaps only an oversight role in the delivery of these projects? He is the deputy chief executive, he is the coordinator general, and it may well impact on his capacity to do the job. We would like some answers also on that, if possible.

Further, the bill provides for the appointment of staff for the rail commissioner. It has been clarified in briefings that this will require no extra staff as they all exist under DTEI now, and all the work will be carried out by existing organisations within major projects. The government has assured us that the estimated cost for the staff has been included in the 2009-10 budget lines for relative projects. Will the minister clarify on the record that it will mean no extra staff and that all staff allocations have been budgeted for in the creation of this new position?

As I said before, the opposition supports the appointment of the rail commissioner, but we look forward to the minister responding to those few questions, perhaps not when summing up, but at clause 1 in the committee stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (12:31): I do not believe there are any further speakers on this bill. By way of concluding remarks, I would like to thank the opposition for its contribution on the second reading.

The bill provides for the establishment of the rail commissioner for the purpose of acting as a rail transport operator under the Rail Safety Act 2007 for the delivery of state government rail infrastructure projects, and to carry out any other function conferred on the commissioner by the Minister for Transport.

The rail commissioner, as a statutory authority, will come under the scrutiny of the South Australian Rail Regulator and the Minister for Transport as required by the Rail Safety Act 2007. This demonstrates the government's commitment to rail safety, the implementation of the new rail safety legislation, as well as ensuring the delivery of safe and efficient transport infrastructure projects meeting the state government's strategic objective for the benefit of commuters and the wider community.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A number of questions have been asked, and I will attempt to answer them. In relation to the first question regarding attracting the best person, and the potential replacement of that person by a more appropriate applicant, it is the rail commissioner as an entity who is accredited. Rod Hook simply happens to be the person filling the position. The authority rests with the Rail Commissioner. Rod Hook will have oversight, and when he is not available there will be deputies available. In terms of the choice of Rod Hook, he is the obvious person. He is currently the head of major projects and it makes sense for him to be accredited.

In relation to the disused rail lines, I have been advised that currently we have to comply, and that the bill before us will not have a bearing on our requirement to comply with other legislation such as the Native Vegetation Act and the Environment Protection Act. In relation to the disused lines specifically, I am advised that that is likely to be included, but we will take that on notice and bring back a response.

In terms of staffing, I am advised that the honourable member was correct; there will be no extra staff, and the rail commissioner and deputies roles will be absorbed from within the Office of Major Projects in DTEI.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have two further questions. One I asked earlier was about whether having a Rail Commissioner would allow the government to tender out the electrification supply, maintenance and operation of a rail system—effectively, to privatise our metropolitan rail network. In terms of my second question, while I accept that Mr Hook is probably the best person to hold this position, and the opposition does not disagree, no-one stays in their role forever. When Mr Hook retires, what process will be put in place to find the next person to fill the role of rail commissioner?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the question of the issue around privatisation, I have been informed that the government has no intention to privatise through this bill. That is not its intention. Under the Rail Safety Act, whoever operates has to be accredited. In relation to operations, we cannot tender for something over which we do not have control. Whoever operates rolling stock, built infrastructure or such like has to be accredited, whether private or public. This bill simply provides a mechanism to accredit someone within government.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What about a replacement mechanism?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It would be another appointment.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: No selection process—just an appointment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No doubt the government will decide at the time what process will be most suitable.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister might like to outline the process, if only because having it on one's CV that they were the South Australian rail commissioner for a period of time would be a significant feather in one's cap and a significant qualification if they were pursuing further career opportunities. Of course, as we have said, we know that Mr Hook serves the state well but, at some point in the next few years, he will probably retire and that will not be an issue. However, I think we need to have an open and transparent appointment selection process for this position.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already put on the record that that will be determined by the government at the time, so I cannot pre-empt what that process might be. Obviously, this time around Rod Hook was the person chosen. We would need to determine the appropriate process at the time, and I am not able to pre-empt that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 18), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 12:52 to 14:18]


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