HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:15): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2015. This bill contains several administrative 'tidy-ups' and a number of uncontroversial changes. I am informed by our shadow transport minister that there has been stakeholder consultation and no significant issues have been raised.

Throughout my time in parliament, our rail system has seen a significant statutory overhaul. The rail safety bill of 2007 implemented the national rail safety bill of 2006, developed by the National Transport Commission. The bill was unanimously approved by transport ministers throughout the Australian Transport Council, and was part of the process to implement a nationally-consistent framework of regulation of all rail safety across the national rail network over the proceeding five years. The opposition supported the bill without question.

During my time as the shadow minister for transport in 2009-10, the rail commissioner bill was passed, which adhered us, supposedly more closely than any other state, to the National Transport Commission's model rail safety legislation. The multitude of changes culminated in the need for a government to determine who would effectively manage and control the new rail infrastructure projects, such as the electrification and extension projects in the 2008 budget. That is how the Rail Commissioner came about.

In 2012, we replaced the state Rail Safety Act 2007 with the rail safety national law bill, as part of the national reform to abolish the state rail regulators and establish a national regulator. Given that SA legislation was the most consistent with the model law, we were nominated by COAG to be the lead state on the legislation. With such a significant overhaul of our rail legislation, it is unsurprising that some changes are necessary, as the legislation proves its areas of efficiency and otherwise.

In summary, the changes in the bill are as follows. A number of amendments refer to a change in language—'cancel' rather than 'revoke' as requested by the industry. Section 20(4) is deleted, removing the requirement for the regulator to issue notice to compel an operator to appear before them. This is to prevent collusion. The time frame for issuing notice allowed operators time to collude before the hearing.

Section 76 is amended to make it an express requirement to pay accreditation fees. An operator can be suspended for failing to pay the fees. An addition to section 96 compels a rail infrastructure manager to give the regulator an annual activity statement. This will help the regulator to maintain oversight and safety standards without as many site visits.

Further, amendment to section 12 clarifies that operating under the influence of alcohol can be determined by a breath test, but there will be no changes to actual practice. Amendment to section 148 for 'general person on entry', deleting 'structure' and substituting 'rail infrastructure' keeps this section in line with the rest of the act. An addition to section 168A grants a rail safety officer the power to compel an operator to produce documents and finally an addition to section 214 allows an exemption of accreditation fees for tourist operators.

As I outlined, we have had significant change to rail law since the time I was elected from 2007 onwards—an eight or nine-year period now—and it is not surprising that there is always some little bit of tweaking that needs to go on to keep the language consistent with the other states.

I am pleased that the insertion of the last point that I made reference to allows an exemption of accreditation fees for tourism operators. A Barossa wine train has been sitting in mothballs for a very long time. I am not sure whether that is ever going to come out of mothballs, but I know that one of the issues around that train was in relation to some of the fees.

I am not sure exactly what accreditation fees will be exempt for tourist operators, but I know there was some fee and we will probably put this through the minister. I see there are a couple of advisers sitting waiting, and we might just ask a question of the minister at clause 1 in the committee stage just to see whether that does help in giving some explanation as to the type of accreditation fees that will be exempted for tourist operators. With those few comments, I indicate that the opposition is happy to support the bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:19): I rise today to speak in support of the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The Office of the National Safety Regulator is an independent body established under the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. The primary objective of the regulator is to encourage and enforce safe rail operations and to promote and improve national rail safety.

Following the leadership of the then federal minister for transport Mr Anthony Albanese and the then South Australian transport minister Patrick Conlon, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was established in Adelaide in July 2012 and commenced operations on 20 January 2013. The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator has responsibility for regulatory oversight of rail safety law in the jurisdictions of South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.

Following the operation of the regulator, the need for some minor technical amendments became apparent over time. The minor amendments in this bill were put to the Transport and Infrastructure Council ministers' meeting held on 7 November 2014. The responsible ministers approved the bill, without any alteration, for introduction to the South Australian parliament at that meeting. It forms part of an amended package, which was developed in conjunction with and with the support of jurisdictions, industry associations and the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union. The amendments are minor in nature and do not represent a material policy shift. As the national lead legislator, South Australia is responsible for the passage of the bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:22): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions in relation to this relatively uncontroversial bill. I particularly thank the Hon. David Ridgway, who has held the transport portfolio for the Liberal Party and who has a great deal of familiarity with many of these issues. I also thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, who is a very well-known train enthusiast, for his contribution on this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to the last amendment I referred to in my second reading speech, which was that tourism operators be exempt from accreditation fees, I know that there were some issues around the wine train. There was a reasonable amount of money that would be required for what I thought was accreditation, so I am interested to know whether that has an impact on the Barossa Wine Train.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can provide the honourable member with this advice: it could apply for the waiver of fees for accreditation under this scheme, for an application for exemption it could apply for the waiver of fees. Does that answer your question?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Let's be hypothetical. Let's say it is the operator or owner of the Barossa Wine Train. There is an accreditation fee of about $50,000 or $100,000, I think, quite a significant amount of money. It seems like an awful lot of money to get a train accredited. Is this the type of fee that the state government would exempt to allow the operator to get back on the rails to do some tourism work, rather than have to come up with $50,000 or $100,000 for accreditation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that it provides the power to waive the fee for the application for the exemption. So this gives the power to waive the fee that is payable on the application for an exemption.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So it waives the application fee but not the actual fee for the accreditation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The regulator can already waive fees for accreditation. This new power gives the power to waive the fee for the application for exemption. So there is already the power to waive the fee for the accreditation; this gives the power to waive the fee for the application for the exemption for accreditation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If the operator or owner of the Barossa Wine Train wanted to get it up and rolling out of the Barossa, the government of the day could waive the fee for accreditation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The regulator could make the decision to waive that, yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If the regulator does not waive the fee, who is it actually paid to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The fee is paid to the regulator.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Does the minister or the minister's adviser have any idea as to the magnitude or size of a potential accreditation fee for the Barossa Wine Train?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the honourable member is happy, we could take that on notice and get back to the member with the exact details.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Alright. If it is the regulator who can waive the fee for a tourism operator, what criteria or circumstances would allow the regulator to exercise that discretion? Is it just a matter of how they feel on the day or is there a set of circumstances or a checklist for reasons to waive the fee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It would be on the individual merit of the application that is made for the exemption, but I will go away and bring back more exact answers. If you have a specific case, I am sure we can talk about the fees or how it might apply in an individual case.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: When an applicant applies for accreditation, what is actually checked off for them to be accredited? What are the requirements to achieve accreditation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am informed that section 65 of the act spells out what an applicant must demonstrate for accreditation but, again, I am happy to ask the department to provide the specific details of what the act provides and how it has been applied.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Okay.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 25) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:32): 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