Rail Safety Bill 2009
Second Reading
Resumed from 24 November 2009.
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [7.48 pm]: The Greens (WA) will also be supporting this legislation. I understand that the Council of Australian Governments agreement on this legislation, as mentioned by Hon Ken Travers, has been several years in the making. The initial motivator for change was in response to a number of rail accidents and the recognition of a more coordinated response to rail safety legislation across jurisdictions. Clearly, this is something that the Greens will be supportive of. Our commitment to rail as a mode of transport is not secret, so any moves that will improve its success, particularly in relation to safety, should also be supported.
We also note that a number of other motivators to this legislation have emerged such as removing impediments to economic activity. The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review noted in its report that safety and removal of economic impediments became the main drivers for the uniform legislation. Having said that, I note that some amendments have been proposed by the legislation committee. The Minister for Transport and the Greens suggested picking up one of those amendments from the legislation committee, which we believe would tighten up the success of this legislation further. Obviously, we will discuss this more when we go into committee.
A number of important points were raised by the legislation committee to which I am sure we will be getting a reply from the minister on the record. I note that Hon Adele Farina is in the chamber and is likely to speak to that committee report so I will not go into too much detail other than to make a few points about the report. BHP Billiton is currently outside the Rail Safety Act and the Department of Transport is trying to bring it in. This would be a good move. Some questions were raised, such as: if accreditation is applied for in other jurisdictions, are fees to be applied and collected by the WA regulator, particularly from operators who work in multiple jurisdictions and how will the fees be distributed? The concept of a principal regulator was raised but is not expressly covered in the bill. I would appreciate the minister commenting on that.
The committee’s report also states —
…the absence of formal recognition of the roles of the rail safety regulator panel and the principal regulator does not give sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament.
…
…the ability of the Rail Safety Regulator Panel and the Principal Regulator to direct the Western Australian regulator on accreditation matters has the potential to derogate from State sovereignty.
These are obviously important points. I am hoping that we can have some discussion about that. Has any regulatory impact statement been prepared for the predicted revenues and budgets for the office of rail safety or the WA rail safety regulator; and, if not, why not? Given that the bill permits one jurisdiction to demand additional conditions over another jurisdiction, how does this introduce consistency across jurisdictions and reduce red tape and compliance costs? Co-regulation will continue to be the basis upon which rail safety regulation will proceed. The office of rail safety will continue to operate on a full cost recovery basis with revenue coming from rail safety accreditation fees. The Greens certainly support a co-regulatory system and are firmly of the view that responsibility for workplace and public safety cannot be contracted out. We are on the record as supporting cost recovery mechanisms. This is a positive. However, we also note the comments in the report from Mr Bruce Chan from the Department of Transport who said in March this year —
I think there is always the risk of a national regime being implemented where it ends up it is easier to go down to the lowest common denominator than aiming for, say, best practice.
Clearly, when we are talking about issues of safety, we need to ensure that that will not be the outcome in adopting this uniform legislation.
Lastly, I note that in the second reading speech the parliamentary secretary clarified that where a conflict arises, the Occupational Health and Safety Act will prevail. However, I also note that in the second reading speech it was identified that a memorandum of understanding would need to be developed between the office of rail safety and the Department of Commerce to ensure effective coordination and cooperation. I am hopeful that in his reply the minister will advise the house of the expected time frame for the creation of this MOU—perhaps it has already commenced—as it is obviously quite important. I will speak more during the committee stage.